Footnotes StyleEdit

Kobi, I have honestly no idea why you changed that. It looks very disorganized now. I think it looked more clear in the previous version. Ottens 16:20, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I'm sorry, but the ** looks better if you ask me, because the single : does not give the same indent as the *; of course I would be happy if there were no discs in front of the "evidence paragraphs", something which could be accomplished with <br /><br /> to force the line break (other than that, you have written an impressive article here) -- Kobi 17:52, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Now it looks like the paragraphs below "Enterprise class" are three different point. They are not. They are simply three different paragraphs.

Thanks ;) Ottens 18:21, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Thumbnailed Images & SidebarsEdit

I tried to use normal thumbnails for the images, but with quite a lot of images, the page looks very disorganized this way. Therefore, I decided to put them all in two large sidebars... Ottens 15:40, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Shouldn't the sidebar about "Original Configuration" go with the text about the "Original Configuration", just like the sidebar about the "Refit Configuration" is next to the text about the "Refit Configuration"? Now the sidebar about the "Original Configuration" is next to the intro text, which is about the Constitution class in whole. Ottens 20:56, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)
  • cough* Captainmike? ;) Ottens 17:42, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Well, I do see your point about that, however the bulk of the article creates a long TOC at the top, so placing the table below that creates a situation where there is no information on the page when loaded. Perhaps the Constitution class refit deserves its own article, since it is making this one unreadable?
I'll rearrange a little, in case you don't like that option -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:46, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
I was thinking about giving the Refit its own page, but I think that is very unpractical. People would look for info about the Constitution class, and it's probably easier to have both the Original and the Refit on the same page... and it's easier linking to it then for writers. Ottens 17:50, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Creating individual pages for both would, however, solve the problem. Plus the current page is quite long, eh. Ottens 17:52, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Actually, I see another problem that has been nagging me for a while. How come the Constitution-class article is purely about the internal arrangement of the USS Enterprise but there is no information about the arrangement in THAT article? since starships classes differ from ship to ship, isn't this information misplaced (similar to all the misplaced information in the Excelsior-class article -- notes about the USS Excelsior's internal arrangement belonged in USS Excelsior, not in the Excelsior-class article, and i think that is what's happening here. The Enterprise is only one ship OF the Constitution class, so its arrangement may not mean much to other vessels in that series -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:53, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
I was under the impression the internal arrangement of the Enterprise was standard among Constitution class starships. Just like the Interior information of the Enterprise-D is on the Galaxy-class page, not on the Enterprise-D page. Of course the Enterprise is the only Constitution class vessel we've seen from the inside, but that counts as well for the Excelsior, the Enterprise-D, Voyager... For practically every starship. And I doubt the interior of starships of the same class would be radically different. Of course, there might be slight differences, but overall, I think it's quite the same... Ottens 17:58, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
HOWEVER, it would solve all our problems! The interior info about the original Enterprise would go there, and the interior about the refitted on the Enterprise-A page. The article would be considerably smaller, and we could have just ONE Constitution class article. Ottens 18:04, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
This is also in the interests of brevity, and reducing our IMAGE HEAVY articles. If a reader wished a detailed description of a transporter room, they could click on the link to a separate article... keep Constitution-class about the Constitution, and keep a bridge article, transporter room article.. etc.. use the Constitution and Enterprise articles to show how their bridges are different from the others. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:11, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)
For a detailed description about a transporter room, they should go the the Transporter page, but for a description about the Constitution class USS Enterprise Transporter Room, they should go to the USS Enterprise page. ;) Anyway, I'll have things rearranged... Ottens 18:13, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)

USS RepublicEdit

Is the USS Republic on the Uncertain Ships list meant to be the ship mentioned in Court Martial? If so then registry is given in dialogue and is NCC-1371. It also appears on the mission assignment graphic from ST VI, though as that's not really visible the canonicity is debatable.

Is there a Constitution Class Merrimack?Edit

In the list of Federation Starships page:

There is a Merrimack listed as a Constitution class ship. It was apparently mentioned in ST:TMP. I doubt it was shown, so unless someone can confirm that it was Constitution class (or not) it should be listed on the Constitution class page as "uncertain".

The website is a beautiful resource! I don't know how (or honestly why :-) you devote the time it must take, but I appreciated finding it!

-- Mickey Rowe (

Final Starship List... PossiblyEdit

I was reading The Making of Star Trek By Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, and it lists the following Starship names as the final list of Constitution class vessels for the series:

Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valient, and Intrepid.

Maybe this will help with what ships are and are not "real".

User:Time Travler 3:01Am CST. 2-15-05 How can the list be erroneous since Roddenberry himself created it. EAnchor 10:42 PM 08 July, 2004.

Well, considering that it already erroneously lists Valiant and Republic, I'd say its a bad start. --Captain Mike K. Bartel

These ships are confirmed:

  • Constitution - NCC-1700. Registry seen on-screen possibly in the original series, and definitely in Franz Joseph drawings on-screen in the movies. The name is confirmed by the dialogue naming the class.
  • Enterprise NCC-1701
  • Constellation NCC-1017. Seen on-screen in "Doomsday Machine"
  • Exeter. Seen as a Constitution in "Omega Glory" registry NCC-1672 is only from Jein and Okuda, but is widely accepted
  • Excalibur. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry NCC-1664 by Jein
  • Lexington. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein, though
  • Potemkin. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein
  • Hood. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein
  • Defiant - seen in "Tholian Web" NCC-1764 Registry by Jein, though


  • Intrepid - never seen, but said to have a crew of 430. NCC-1631 registry by Jein
  • Farragut - never seen, no evidence it was a constitution. registry from Jein only.
  • Yorktown - never seen, no evidence it was a constitution. NCC-1717 registry from Jein & Okuda only.
  • Kongo - never seen, never mentioned. listed only is Star Trek VI background art.
  • Eagle NCC-956 - never seen, never mentioned. listed only is Star Trek VI background art.
    • Merrimack - a Constitution from the Technical Manual, mentioned in TMP comm chatter. its class wasnt mentioned in the movie, but in the manual -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST)


  • Valiant - theres no way Valiant could have been a Constitution 50 years prior to TOS. its possible there was another Constitution-class Valiant based on the list, but non-canon speculation is not appropriate
  • Republic - no one ever said she was a Constitution, who knows where this reference came from (probably that non-canon book you cited). since the ship had "old style" pile circuits and suh, and was a training ship, I'd want to believe it was older. its possible there was another Constitution-class Republic (the DS9 training ship?), after the NCC-1371 was decommissioned based on the list, but non-canon speculation is not appropriate
"that non canon book" you speak of was written by Gene Roddenberry himself during the original production run of the Original Series and published towards the end of the third season, and is mostly reprints of the original writers guide and production materials (as well as internal memos). As something written at the time, by Roddenberry himself, it's a little cavalier to dismiss it as "non-canon", it's at least as canon as the semi-canon Technical Manuals and Chronology/Encyclopedia since it was made by the producers of a series, during that series, as a reference to that series -- 22:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a few more uncertainties from un-aired dialogue, possibly a couple from "Amok Time" script, and a few more uncertainties from the Star Trek VI art (but I'm hesitant to include the ST:6 ones that aren't listed in the Making of Star Trek lists, its more than likely they are other types, and more believably so also) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 12:00, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST)

The Essex and Eagle are from an early draft for "Journey to Babel", the Excalibur and Endeavour are from "Amok Time", first draft; Excalibur was then used in "Ultimate Computer" -- Kobi 12:07, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST)

If canon establishes Constitution as NCC-1700, Constellation cannot be the same class, not when she is 700 contract (registry) numbers earlier; similarly, neither is Republic.

One possible excuse permits the above case, as I see it: NCC-1700 Constitution replaces a same-named ship, permitting confusion; nevertheless, a different class. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05
I am inclined to limit the Constitutions thus:

Constitution NCC-1700

Enterprise NCC-1701

Hood NCC-1703

Exeter NCC-1706

Lexington NCC-1709

Kongo NCC-1710

Yorktown NCC-1717

plus one or two unnamed ships. I am disinclined to include NCC-1764 Defiant and NCC-1831 Intrepid because they are too high-numbered, given the size and complexity of Constitution (and Gene's intent, stated in Making, there only be 12 of her class at a time), unless we accept they are replacing losses (in which case, why not reuse existing names? or do they?).

I further exclude NCC-956 Eagle and NCC-1071 Constellation as too low-numbered; they belong to a different class, perhaps joined by NCC-1371 Republic (which I would construe as lead ship of a later group, given Constitution; on that basis, Eagle might be, too).
Furthermore, I propose a third group:

Farragut NCC-1647

Potemkin NCC-1657

Excalibur NCC-1664

Endeavour NCC-1695

These are likely replacing losses in the Republic class.

I suggest the relationship between these ships is comparable to Gato: changes in weapons spec, propulsion, mainframe, hull framing, and so forth, but superficially identical except in detail. (Perhaps examination of canon photographs or art would reveal?) --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

As I recall, the so-called "Enterprise-A" was a new design, not a Constitution. --trekphiler, 16/11/05

It's intriguing to me "STTOS" with Constitution comes closest to an actual naming system: historical ships. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

Returning to "speculation" about Constitution: if we accept Enterprise was launched 2245, how does a ship 700 registry #s earlier fall in the same class? I'll accept Constitution& Enterprise are a common class... Has a canon (or authoritative) list of launch dates ever appeared? --trekphiler, 21/11/05

Re registry numbers (again). Constitution & Enterprise are sequential, as you'd expect, being sister ships (implying from the same yard, too); so are Kongo & Lex (ditto). It's less clear class ships would have close registry numbers. I see no reason to conclude the registry numbers, referring entirely to spacefaring ships, would not be sequential, absent information on (type-specific) hull numbers, which need not be. Neither have I seen anything in the canon that suggests the numbers are random; in fact, given Archer's Enterprise is NX-01, and at least five known Constitutions are in close sequence, I'd say it's implied they are sequential. Of course, it's most probable the model makers or somebody picked the numbers out of thin air because they looked good, paying no mind to what it implied about the Fleet or the Fed...--trekphiler, 16/11/05

Warp FactorEdit

Maximum Warp on the refit shows "warp 12". This is impossible because the maximum speed attainable is almost warp 10. Warp 10 cannot be reached as it is referred to moving at an infinite speed. This is accepted canon, and also reinforced in more than one novel.

See Warp Factor Chart.

That speed is in the old-style Cochrane scale, which was used on TOS. It had to have been, considering the number of times Evil Alien Entities caused the ship to reach Warp 15. --Steve 16:34, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST)
The maximum speed reached by the Enterprise was Warp 14 in "Is There In Truth No Beauty" (and was dragged at warp 20 by Karla's ship ((which went warp 36 itself)) in "The Counter Clock Incident.") However, no cruising or maximum speeds were canonically established for the E-refit, so i removed the speed reference from its chart --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST)
BTW, the speeds listed (if the old scale is truly wf cubed = multiples of c):
  • warp 14 = 2744 times the speed of light
  • warp 20 = 8000 times the speed of light
  • warp 36 = 46,656 times light
these are all in the high warp 9.xx ranges on the new scale, of course--Captain Mike K. Bartel

In a Mirror, Darkly CGI Constitution Class Edit

Would anyone like to mention under Background information that a CGI rendering of the Constitution was developed for In A Mirror Darkly, Parts I and II? -<unsigned>

Note to and Edit

Please refrain from re-editting the Interior Design and Background sections of the Constitution-class page! The image configuration is good as it is, and it is totally unnecessary to reconfigure the images to other locations making the page look cluttered.

Also, I would suggest you both (if you are not one and the same person) register at Memory Alpha,, Ottens 16:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually Ottens, you are wrong about that, the version as it appears now displayes the text very wild compared to the version before. I had a look at the history of this page and you reverted a lot of improved image placements. Maybe you should check in some other browsers and resolutions -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AARGH! What the hell is that!? That's no layout, that's a catastrophe! If I do something like these edits it has a good reason... -- 17:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I checked my edit in both Mozilla and in IE, and in both browsers it looked better than's version, so therefore I changed it back. Currently, MA seems to be having some troubles, so I'll have to check it again when MA is running fine again.
I would still like to urge to at least register, since edits by unregistered users often turn out to be vandalism or something of the sort. An edit from a registered user at least shows the edit was done with good intention. Also, if you change back the edit of a registered user, the least thing you can do is leave a comment on the page's talk page explaining why you did so, pointing out my edit looked like hell when not using Mozilla ;) My apoligies for that. Ottens 19:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that MA is up and running again, I checked my version in both IE and Firefox also, and I can't see anything wrong with it. It looks just fine using either three browsers (Mozilla, Firefox, IE).. :S Ottens 21:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hm. My Opera and IE still show it (your version), like on Kobi's screenshots. I think it's a problem with the resolutions. -- 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert Edit

I reverted the extensive edit of Ottens as I felt it was, quite frankly, not quite as "up to snuff" as the previous version and was not formatted as well. For one thing, it was missing some info that was previously there (i.e., the technical info section). However, as I know it took Ottens a little while to rewrite all of this, I do not wish the edit to simply disappear into oblivion. So, I have placed the topic here for discussion to receive a second opinion (preferably from an admin) on the subject. Which should go and which should stay -- or can the two edits be merged in some way? --From Andoria with Love 12:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Would you please point out specifically which topics in the Technical Data section that were previously there are not in my edit of the article? To my best knowledge, I included all information available, save for the "Atomsphere entry" subsection, the inclusion of which, IMO, is rather ridiculous. In theory, all Starfleet vessels should be capable of atmospheric entry, and with little more data than "This vessel could do that" on the subject, I decided it was not necessary to keep it.
It may be your theory that all Starfleet vessels should be capable of atmospheric entry, but, truth be told, we have rarely seen large starships fly through a planet's sky. The Intrepid-class ship is the other notable exception, and if you look at that entry, it reads "Being one of the few Starfleet starship classes capable of atmospheric entry and planetary landing, the Intrepid class starship is equipped with anti-gravity generators as well as impulse and lifters strategically placed at the mass and stress points on the bottom portion of the secondary hull." This points out that few Starfleet starship classes are capable of atmospheric entry. On top of this, it is a starship class entry that gives details about its atmospheric entry capabilities. So if you are still operating with the assumption that all Starfleet vessels can perform atmospheric entry, you should remove that from the Constitution entry and the Intrepid entry (as well as any other specific references to it in other ship classes) and mention it in the Starfleet entry or make a new entry just for it. Or just stop assuming that your opinions and theories should dictate what is considered canonical. --Werideatdusk 23:36, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
On the formatting issue: in my opinion, my version was better formatted than the previous, not featuring thumbnails seemingly randomly located to both the left and right sides of the texts all throughout the article. Also, the images were thumbed rather large on the previous version, making the article harder to read, especially on smaller screens (there are still people using 800x600). Besides, the previous version also had some parts of blank page, in order to match the size of the images with the texts. Ottens 21:29, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I'll revert it back to your version, but I'd still like this to stay up here so it can be more thorougly discussed. --From Andoria with Love 23:30, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
But please point out what parts of the previous version were not included in my edit? Ottens 09:22, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I was incorrect about the missing info, and I apologize about that and for the revert. Truth be told, I think I was tired when I did it. Also, after reading the complete article, I think I like your version better. That said, great job! :-) --From Andoria with Love 10:36, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That's good to hear :-) Thanks! Ottens 11:05, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Jefferies tubes Edit

It would be nice to see a picture of the access walkway shown in "In a Mirror, Darkly".--StAkAr Karnak 13:10, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It would be even nicer to have some information on it, before adding an image. ;-) Ottens 13:24, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Besides, there's an image of a "jefferies tube junction" here, but no image of the actual jefferies tube on the Constitution yet. Ottens 13:25, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict Edit

I left the following message at User talk: earlier today. It is directed at the person who keeps reverting my edit of the Constitution class page. I would like to strongly urge this person to register at MA, so he or she would have noticed this message at his/her talk page. Ottens 21:05, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Memory Alpha! I reverted your edit to the image configuration of the Constitution-class page, for the following reasons.

In my opinion, the content of an article is more important than the images accompanying it. Images serve only to make the information more clear by illustrating it, but should never be the main focuss of an article. Therefore, I tend to keep images small, at least never larger than the standard thumb size (180px width). On the Constitution class page, I used lots of small images, because many images were available, and, IMO, should be used on that page. Using large thumbs gives some problems:

  • First of all, on people using small screens (800*600), images will take up most of the width of the screen;
  • Images become the main focuss of an article, rather than the text;
  • And images become shattered throughout the article, appearing on both the left and rigth sides of the text, decreasing readability.

In my edit, most images are located on the right side of the article. Only by necessity, a few images are also thumbed to the left side. Of course, this creates a row of thumbs on the right side of the article, which may not appear very "cool", but it certainly does make the text easier to read -- and that's what the article of course is about. Ottens 21:04, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Why i'll revert again:

  • your rearrangement didn't regard "IE glitching" and screwed the proven design of the page up (also not regarding problems with other browsers)
  • it may work at 800px, but at res. higher than 1200px your captions become bigger than the pics themselves! Even if there is a minority using res. lower than 1000px we have to optimize for minimum 1000px, and that's why the thumb style automatically uses 180px. Maybe 200px ist too much for two pics at the same altitude, but 180 works (res 1000px). There's also no problem with readability with this version, but yours didn't connected the pics correctly to "their" text (esp. engineering and tactical).


First of all, stop reverting over and over again while this matter is still not resolved. It's very unappropriate.

Onto the issue itself: I checked my version in both Mozilla and IE, and the article looks good in both versions. The "IE glitching" you refer to does not appear on my version of the Constitution class page.

Contrary to your claim, all images do appear along the text they're about. I checked regarding your claim of the "engineering and tactical" images, and they -- in both Mozilla and IE -- appear along the text they're supposed to be about. What's more, your version includes two images that have been nominated for deletion -- nominated for good reasons.

Finally, in your version, text and images appear almost randomly displaced over the entire page. In my version, paragraphs are either the entire width of the page, or are shortened in width by image(s) next to it. On your version, it's not uncommon for a paragraph to be partly shortened in width, and then have one sentence over the entire width of the image, because you uncarefully put an image somewhere.

In conclusion, I would also like to ask you, quite bluntly: what's your problem? I created the Constitution class page, and extensively editted over the past week, and quite frankly, I think I did a pretty good job. Your only action at MA seems to be reverting my edits of the Constitution class page. Because you're un unregistered user, I'm assuming all four IP-adresses are really one and the same person? (Please do register! It makes things a lot easier for the both of us. At least then I'm sure edits are no sign of vandalism, which edits by unregistered users usually are.) So why are you so edgy about this page? Ottens 09:54, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, then with illustration:

Removed for deletion, problems fixed. --Test 16:22, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote, we have to optimize for 1000px minimum, that's what I did. The image that should replace this one doesn't show the whole bridge and it's TOS illumination, so it's unappropriate. And this is simply non-canon because the model has been modified later.--Test 18:36, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with User:Ottens, I don't see the problem with the article. If the pictures are slightly out of alignment, whats the problem with that? I'm using 1024x786, and it looks fine to me! Also, its a bit odd changing a featured article to such an extent, especially if you're not even registered... just my opinion. :) zsingaya 19:31, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I can see the IE thing too, the current version is better. And everyone can change an article, that has nothing to do with registration... --Porthos 20:29, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

User "Test". Here are print screens of how the page appears on my computer, using IE. It looks exactly the same when using Mozilla.

Image 1 of my version in IE. Another image of my version in IE.

As you can see, the images all appear nicely next to the texts they're about. There's no IE-"glitching", which probably means this is a problem on your behalf?
What's more, some things look rather uncarefully edited on your version.

Print screen 1 and 2 of untidy editting on your behalf.

You say in your comment that the bridge image thumbs are "definately too small". May I ask why? Why is large size required for thumbnails. The idea of a thumb is that it's a small version of a large image, and that in order to see the detail, you click on the image.
In response to Porthos: non-registered users can make edits, yes, but I was/am rather in doubt about this person's edit, considering he/she has never made edits to MA in the past, prior to making an extensive edit to a page that looked perfectly good to me. Ottens 22:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
You're missing his point: I've just checked it with 800x600 and it works in your version but if you're trying higher resolutions around 1280x1024 you'll see it's not working because the font is far smaller in relation to the images, and the images appear smaller too so that they become a bit undersized. If you look at intrepid class or Galaxy-class you'll see that there are no images smaller than 180px - for good reasons. I don't consider 1 and 2 as major problems. Concerning "IE glitching" you can ask Tough Little Ship, Tim Thomason, Memory or THOR, they encountered it as well (elsewhere).--Porthos 23:31, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the IE-"glitching": the fact that it doesn't appear when I check the page in IE makes me think this is a problem on your behalf, rather than a general problem when using Internet Explorer.
Regarding the resolution matter: I checked using different resolutions, and "Test"'s version only looks good when using 1280*1024. On smaller resolutions, it looks rather untidy, unclean. Using 800*600, it's a disaster. I guess we'll have to decide for what resolution we optimize this page. Very few people use 1280*1024; very few people use 800*600. 1024*768 is the standard screen resolution these days. In my opinion, websites should be optimized for that. If we optimize the page for higher resolutions because you happen to prefer that means it looks amateuristic. Ottens 10:25, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
One more thing I forgot: pages such as the Intrepid class and Galaxy class do not have this problem. Why? Because the Constitution class page has twice the ammount of images as all other starship class pages, because we're dealing with two versions of the same ship here. Ottens 10:27, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I tested my version with 1024*768 and it looks good too. But it also looks good with higher res - that's the advantage... (what is the "800*600 disaster"?) --Test 10:59, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Check your version in 800*600. With 180px thumbs on both the left and right sides, there sometimes is virtually no space left for text at all.
Your version is acceptable in both 1024*768 and higher. My versions looks better than yours in 1024*768 (or at least, in my opinion), but looks equally horrible in higher resolutions as yours in 800*600. Ottens 11:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
There are many pages around that look odd at 800x600 and statistics say that there are more internet users with higher resolutions than 1024x768 as with 800x600. It makes just no sense to take much care of this minority and it means less work for all if we are oriented towards future standards than outdated ones. --Porthos 16:49, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
If we don't have to consider the minority, then the page should be optimized for 1024*768, since the majority of the internet users uses that resolution. As you understand, this cannot be the resolution. Preferable would be a version of this page that looks acceptable in all screen resolutions. Ottens 19:10, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Uhm, optimizing for 800*600 and 1600*1200?! I'm afraid that's simply impossible... --Test 19:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
In response to "Test"'s comment on the bridge image: we do not need two images that show practically the same thing. We need only one image of a Constitution class bridge, though usage may be found for the TOS bridge image elsewhere. Not both images are required on this page. Concerning the model image: it would of course be preferably if an image from the same angle could be screencapped from one of the features. As of now, it's the best complete aft view of the Constitution class starship. I sympathize with keeping the more zoomed-in image of the impulse drive systems, though, as it also shows the aft officers' lounge windows in more detail, besides the impulse engines themselves. I think both images should be on the Constitution class page. Ottens 22:21, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)


If canon establishes Constitution as NCC-1700, Constellation cannot be the same class, not when she is 700 contract (registry) numbers earlier; similarly, neither is Republic. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

One possible excuse permits the above case, as I see it: NCC-1700 Constitution replaces a same-named ship, permitting confusion; nevertheless, a different class. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05
I am inclined to limit the Constitutions thus:
  • Constitution NCC-1700
  • Enterprise NCC-1701
  • Hood NCC-1703
  • Exeter NCC-1706
  • Lexington NCC-1709
  • Kongo NCC-1710
  • Yorktown NCC-1717

plus one or two unnamed ships. I am disinclined to include NCC-1764 Defiant and NCC-1831 Intrepid because they are too high-numbered, given the size and complexity of Constitution (and what I've read of Gene's intent there only be 12 of her class at a time), unless we accept they are replacing losses (in which case, why not reuse existing names? or do they?).

I further exclude NCC-956 Eagle and NCC-1071 Constellation as too low-numbered; they belong to a different class, perhaps joined by NCC-1371 Republic (which I would construe as lead ship of a later group, given Constitution; on that basis, Eagle might be, too).
Furthermore, I propose a third group:

Farragut NCC-1647 Potemkin NCC-1657 Excalibur NCC-1664 Endeavour NCC-1695

These are likely replacing losses in the Republic class.

I suggest the relationship between these ships is comparable to Gato: changes in weapons spec, propulsion, mainframe, hull framing, and so forth, but superficially identical except in detail. (Perhaps examination of canon photographs would reveal?) --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

As I recall, the so-called "Enterprise-A" was a new design, not a Constitution. --trekphiler, 16/11/05

It's intriguing to me "STTOS" with Constitution comes closest to an actual naming system: historical ships. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

Very interesting speculation, but there's a lot of evidence from the show itself which disagrees with what you've put here.
The USS Enterprise-A was Constitution-class -- it says it on the dedication plaque seen in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country -- similarly, the USS Defiant is also, agin established as Constitution-class by its plaque. The name "Constitution class" refers to both the TOS modification and the later refit design used in the Star Trek films -- the "class name" encompasses both modifications, showing another way that Starfleet registers and names ships completely differently from the US Navy, therefore, the US Navy cannot be used as a logical model to describe how Starfleet would work.
Also, Starfleet numbers tend to run non-sequentially. even excepting the odd case of NCC-1017; the USS Entente has an NCC-2100 number even though NCC-2000 Excelsior wouldnt be out for another 15 years, obviously we cant expect every Constitution to have a number higher than 1700. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:59, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Starfleet tends not to reuse a ship name for the same class -- there have only been a handful of cases of this, mostly in special situations (two Contitution-class Enterprises; two Defiant-class Defiants, etc) all other ships named as successors have been different classes -- so replacements would likely have different names that the original run of the class.
If there's canon evidence for Yorktown and NCC-1764 Defiant, I bow to it; I don't recall it. That doesn't invalidate everything else. It's also pretty flimsy evidence to invalidate on. Moreover, there's substantial internal evidence in canon for similarity of Starfleet practise with USN, not least the ship command structure; I would argue for a similarity in the registry.
I'd be leery of relying on Excelsior to bolster my argument, given her apparently unhappy design; if Scotty could so easily disable her, it may have been awhile before she entered service.
And if the canon supports such an extensive run under the same class name, I'd say (as I have elsewhere) the writers don't know what they're talking about.
Also, is it canon names aren't reused? It seems contraindicated by reuse of Defiant (Enterprise being a special case...); that we haven't seen names reused does not establish it did not happen. --squadfifteen, 17/11/05

If we accept Enterprise launched 2245, how does a ship 700 registry #s earlier fall in the same class? I'll accept Constitution& Enterprise are a common class... Has a canon (or authoritative) list of launch dates ever appeared? --trekphiler, 21/11/05

  • Well, 1764 is canon for Defiant, as of "In A Mirror Darkly", for one thing (referring to someone above looking for a citation.Capt. Christopher Donovan 04:53, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
So I see the discussion started on Talk:USS Yorktown (23rd century) continues here in part. We have no problem if one disregards the registries associated with the vessels! There is no canon evidence to believe the Starbase 11 chart listed a) all Constitution vessels b) the Constitution vessels which names we knew. Matt Jefferies wanted the starship's to start with 17 and his wishes should be respected. Also the Jein-Interpretation does NOT say that the vessels are Constitution class, but that 17xx vessels belong to class IX and 16xx ones to class VIII. This little information was dropped when the registries were imported to the Encyclopedia. The only ships WITH registries from TOS we know 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1017 Constellation, and 1371 Republic, +TMP 1715 Merrimack and +ENT 1764 Defiant. Then there are the 1709, 1631/1831, 1703, 1672, 1664, 1697, 1718, and 1685 of which we only know they were assigned to Starbase 11 -- Kobi - (Talk) 11:22, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I think it's really just a flub in numbering ships back during the production of TOS. It also could very well be that the numbers are not chronological, or perhaps there were ships with those numbers to be made, but then cancelled, but they used the numbers on the sister ships. I don't know, I know after researching here, and Star, I feel that the names are atleast right, and several registry numbers were. Terran Officer April 25, 1:41 AM (EST)

Please accept my apologies in advance if I muddy the waters unnecessarily. Is there any canon establishment that the U.S.S. Constitution has to be NCC-1700? Is that firmly established? If it isn't, maybe Constitution could've been NCC-1600, or even NCC-900. That doesn't mean there were a total of 700 Constitution-class vessel built prior to Enteprise. In fact, not all of those numbers had to be used on Constitution-class ships, if they were used at all.

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the longtime fandom assumption that the U.S.S. Valiant lost at Eminiar VII was one of the first Constitution-class starships built, in, say, 2215. (Lost 50 years prior to Ambassador Fox's mission.) Let's say it was NCC-901, built next after the original U.S.S. Constitution. Let's say it took over 50 years for the Warp 7 engine mentioned in "These Are the Voyages..." to be perfected for practical application in Federation starships, but that the first wave of the Constitution-class vessels were only capable of Warp 5-to-6 in "real world" performance. Now let's assume that succeeding sub-classes of the Constitution class are introduced once every ten or twenty years, each subclass improving on the technology of the previous subclass. By the time of "The Cage," Capt. Pike's Enterprise could finally max out at Warp 7 for a sustained period to reach Talos IV. My point is that the original Federation starships named Constitution, Valiant and Eagle were the first wave of ships with a perfected Warp 7 engine, but maybe like the NX-01 Enterprise before it, these new ships were still rough around the edges. (See the Roddenberry-approved sketch by Matt Jeffries in the main article to see what the first Constitution-class, Constitution-subclass might have looked like.) Captain Pike's starship Enterprise would have been a Constitution-class vessel, but of a much later (and presumably, much more refined) subclass. Likewise, Capt. Kirk would have presided over the Enterprise's refit in 2265 after the disastrous mission at the galaxy's edge, opting for a thorough refurbishment of the whole ship rather than just repairs.

If we assume all this for sake of argument, the Constitution-class legacy could look like this:

2215: Constitution-subclass: NCC-9xx, NCC-10xx, included U.S.S. Eagle, U.S.S. Constellation and U.S.S. Valiant,; weapons: advanced phase canons, photonic torpedoes; cruise: Warp 4.5, redline: Warp 6

2225: 2nd subclass (unnamed): NCC-13xx, NCC-15xx, included U.S.S. Republic and the orignal U.S.S. Yamato, weapons: unchanged; cruise: Warp 4.8, redline: Warp 6.5

2240: 3rd subclass (unnamed): NCC-16xx, NCC-17xx, included U.S.S. Potemkin and U.S.S. Enterprise, weapons: high-energy lasers, photonic torpedoes (changed to phasers and photon torpedoes by mid-2250's); cruise: Warp 5, redline: Warp 7

2260: 4th subclass (unnamed): NCC-175x+, NCC-18xx, included U.S.S. Defiant and U.S.S. Endeavour; weapons: phaser banks, photon torpedoes; cruise: Warp 6, redline: Warp 8.

2270: Enterprise-subclass: NCC numbers unknown, this is the refit Enterprise; weapons: warp-powered phasers, photon torpedoes; cruise: Warp 7, redline: Warp 9 (source for these warp statistics: The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, by Gene Roddenberry and Susan Sackett)

2295: 6th subclass: NCC numbers unknown, this is the mod seen in TNG's "Booby Trap"

My basic logic behind all of this is: If the Klingons can fly ships of the same basic design for 200 years, why can't Starfleet? Ol' Horta Face 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The out of sequence registry numbers needs not be a huge problem. It could be that the lower registry ships were built out of space frames originally used as early test models. This is what happened with the US Space Shuttles:
  • USS Enterprise, OV-101 (Used for approach and landing tests)
  • USS Columbia, OV-102 (The first space worthy shuttle constructed)
  • USS Challenger, OV-98 (Constructed from a frame initially used for tests only. It was later finished into a spaceworthy orbiter to save costs. It has a lower registry number than its two predecessors because the frame was built before either of them).
Just my thoughts on it - – General Grant 12:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually a canical reference to the USS Constellation being a Constitution class starship!? As far as I can tell, the entire basis for this argument is that to Fans, the Constellation looks like a Constitution class ship, but that doesn't mean it has to be. In the real world, there are a range of examples of military vessals being from different classes and yet looking the same. Most civilians would find it difficult to tell the difference between a US Seawolf Class submarine and a US Virginia Class sub... but they are two distinct classes. Perhaps a better example was the Royal Navy's first Nuclear Submarine, HMS Dreadnought. She was a proto-type vessal which became the basis of the later Valliant class. To the lay person, HMS Valliant and HMS Dreadnought looked identical... but the Valiant was a far more refined design that built upon lessons learnt from Dreadnought.

Applying this to the Star Trek World. My personal preference is that the USS Constellation is a prototype design built over a protacted period which turned out to be too expensive. The nerds at the fleetyards ended up going back to the drawing board and used the experence gained to design the latter Constitutions.

DAB - Feb 25th 2008

Specification Edit

Is there a canon reason the number of TT was changed from up to 6 to only 2 in the FRAM refit? --squadfifteen, 17/11/05

I have no idea what FRAM means. Are you talking about ships from Star Trek here? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Phasers at WarpEdit

I noticed on the tactical systems section that the article was going on the idea that phasers were not used at warp...There's plenty of good canon evidence that they ARE used at warp, some of the latter series' confusing statements notwithstanding...I didn't want to just come out and make a BIG change like that without soliciting comment first...Capt. Christopher Donovan 04:56, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Phasers can't be used at warp on the refit Enterprise because the phasers are tied into the warp drive, the ship had previously had the ability as indicated by Kirk's attempt to fire the phasers at warp until corrected by Decker. I am correcting the article to reflect this.

Actually the refit can use phasers at warp, Decker says that when the warp drive went into "imbalance" that phaser power was cut off. He never says that they can't be fired when the warp drive is stable.

Transporter Room "Staging Area" Edit

Is there anyone who can point me at a specific piece of information to suggest the "suiting up" area shown in TMP is actually adjacent to aTransporter Room? The sequence in the film I thought made it pretty clear that it was part of the Air Lock areaCapt. Christopher Donovan 05:30, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know if there's any canon information in that regard, but this fact is mentioned in the non-canon Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, which is where I based the information of the "staging area" upon. So guess it's not really canon, though the authour may have gotten that information from behind-the-scenes sources? Ottens 16:14, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I remember the reference, but IIRC there's nothing in "Mr Scott's..." to indicate that the "airlock prep" room seen in the film is the "staging area" Johnson mentions...Capt. Christopher Donovan 08:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-refit saucer vs. nacelle separation Edit

FWIW, like a lot of folks, I've thought for years that "The Apple" contained a reference to saucer separation, but after listening closely, it really doesn't. Kirk tells Scotty "discard the warp nacelles if you have to, and crack-out of there with the main section". (This line is not transcribed in at least one popular online reference) There's a similar order to discard nacelles in "The Savage Curtain". Both emphasize nacelle separation and say nothing specific about saucer separation. The design of the ship certainly suggests it's an option, and there might have been something planned for ST: TMP, but... does this mean a reference to primary/secondary hull separation in the pre-refit configuration is something less than canon? --Aurelius Kirk 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, if it has been mentioned as a background note by a member of the Trek staff, it may have some validity. I have even heard references that many starships have the ability to separate their saucers (which I don't see why not), but cannot reintegrate them without starbase/drydock assistance. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the Constitution class has the ability to eject both nacelle and saucer sections in the original configuration only. The refit of this class took away the option of nacelle ejection, due to the new warp core arrangement and the increased power output of the new design. If you look at NX-01 U.S.S. Enterprise, there is no way of ejecting the saucer. The design places the warp core and nacelles away from the ship. Just like dragster design(of the mid 20th century) changed position the engine behind the driver for safety. A starship at speed does not have to fly through it's own debris field. The greatest danger to the early starships came from catastrophic failure of the most energetic parts. One can assume as forcefield technology advanced, main engineering was able to move inside the hull of the secondary section. The Constittution Class had the ability to either eject the nacelles or the engineering section depending on the nature of the problem. The refit made this extra option(nacelle ejection) obsolete due to the new blast radius of the new engine design's power output. This new option evolved over the years to the point of what can be seen in the day to day practices abroad the Galaxy Class Starships. In the early days breaking apart your ship was an option of last resort. The vessel was either lost and what was left was used for spare parts or abandoned due to extreme structural damage. If you were not under attack and you broke apart your ship, Starfleet took a dim view of it, especialy when your vessel required the use of spacedock to reassemble it. Saucer separation still carries with it an unsettling effect on the crew. A feeling against there pride "We have not done our jobs!" This, of course, is untrue giving the extremely dangerous job of space exploration.

Confusion within the articleEdit

There is some confusion within the article what ships are Constitution and which are not; USS Kongo for example is listed as one of the original 12 ships in the beginning, but as uncertain in the end listing; also as I've read here USS Yorktowns status is disputed as well etc. But I don't just want to edit a featured article easily, so perhaps anyone could present here what is the "final" list of certain and probable Consitutions? Kennelly 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Constitution refit/ Enterprise class. Edit

I'm wanting opinions about spliting the Constitution class page into two, one for the original class and one for the refit which was there after known as the Enterprise class, although I haven't seen any reference to that except the one I added. Being that the Enterprise was so heavily rebuilt, and to a successful design, it was considered the prototype of a new class of ships, named after the original the Enterprise. I'm surprised no one has included this here. The Enterprise-A was built as an Enterprise class making each incarnation of the Enterprise a different (originally at least) class, Constitution, Enterprise, Exselsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovreign. Thanks.--Dac18643 05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Sorry I missed that. And my information probably predates that movie. I guess I should take my note out of the article. I get confused about whats "official" and what isn't. And my opinion is that having the newly built ships of that type would be a new class. The new ones aren't "refits" but new construction.--Dac18643 05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Dilithium dilemma comic
Not to re-start an old discussion, but there actually is a modern example to compare with. Many classes of naval ships undergo refits, sometimes extensive. When a new ship is bult with all of these upgrades in place, thus never refitted itself, it is still considered a member of the original class. It is usually just called a member of a new "flight" of ships. An example is the Los Angeles class submarine, of which there have been 3 "flights", but they are all still Los Angeles class. New build constitutions that match the refit configuration could therefore be considered "flight 2" of the same class, and not a new one. --OuroborosCobra 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, there is evidence apparently going back to 1980 that if the producers had EVER considered "Enterprise class" for the refit, they had abandoned the idea early on. Check THIS out, from the Trek Newspaper strip, set in the TMP era. Not canon, but officially approved at the time:

12 vs 13 ships Edit

Most people in half memory of a line from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" believe there were only 12 ships as of that episode. The truth is Kirk's line says there are 13 Constitution Class ships. The line excludes the Enterprise in the 12 "12 like it in the fleet". Because of this keeping this article accurate might be hard, especially with new members coming in. So I am going to add a note to the article, even though it might appear an unnecessary note. --TOSrules 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"There are twelve like it in the fleet", Capt. Kirk does indeed say in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday". He also says their authority comes from the United Earth Space Probe Agency. With the exception of the U.S.S. Intrepid, most of the original list of supposedly Constitution-class vessels appear to be manned by Human crews (or mostly Human crews) from Earth, therefore supposedly sponsored by U.E.S.P.A. Presumably, all Constitution-class vehicles are Starfleet vessels (it is unknown if the Vulcans continue to maintain their own separate fleet of front-line cruisers in the 23rd century) but therein lies the quandary: Were all (or nearly all) Constitution-class starships of the 2360's (and before, and after?) manned and sponsored by Terrans?
Note that, canonically speaking, Kirk does not precisely say "there are only twelve Constitution class starships in the Federation fleet". Rather, it is reasonable to conclude Kirk is talking about twelve Federation starships (presumably Constitution-class) from Earth. If every major player/council member-world in the Federation sponsored a similar number of vessels (12 from Vulcan, including Intrepid; 12 from Andor, 12 from Tellar, etc.) and other worlds and colonies sponsored or joint-sponsored at least one ship, the Starfleet of "classic" Trek would easily encompass at least a couple hundred starships, including several dozen Constitution-class vessels.
This would also mean the loss of the starships Intrepid, Defiant and the loss of the crews of the Exeter and Excalibur would not be a crippling blow to Starfleet at that time. Otherwise, the later half of the 2260's was devastating to the Federation, causing the pool of their best top-line starships to be gutted. Ol' Horta Face 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be considered here that Gene Roddenberry, along with everyone on the production team of the Original Series seemed to consider the line to mean that the Enterprise was one of the twelve ships. And that it was the whole Starfleet, not just an Earth originating fleet. According to The Making of Star Trek (pg. 163-165, 204, etc.) --Pseudohuman 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

more than 2 photon tubes? Edit

In Wrath of Khan, we see a shot that seems to establish that there are FOUR torpedo bays on the enterprise. in most shots, the bays are labelled 1 and 2, but in one shot, just after the enterprise leaves orbit and heads to the nebula, we see a shot with a Torpedo bay 3 and 4. for more details see here: perhaps the Refit Constitution has a pair of torpedo tubes that fire rearwards, out a common port in the back of the neck? (in that black 'cut-out' perhaps?) -Mithril 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, but before it is included in the article, I think we need someone to confirm these shots on their own DVDs (sorry, I am poor and don't have any). I feel this needs to be checked because some of the shots on the external link are obviously doctored (expecially that last one). Once it is confirmed, we should change the article to reflect 4 torpedo tubes for the refit. --OuroborosCobra 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is made perfectly clear in the Trekplace article that the existene of these Torpedobays 3 and 4 is practically impossible. It should be noted in the article, though, preferably as a mistake in the Background section. Ottens 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

it's made clear that the articles author beleives the existance of bay's 3 and 4 is impossible. and it's true that it makes little sense if they fire foreward. thus why i suggested rear fireing tubes. bays 3 and 4 would then be behind 1 and 2, facing the opposete way. -Mithril 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that that would not jibe with what we have seen of the refit constitution. Here is a rear shot:
USS Enterprise refit, aft
It does not look like the module with the forward tubes has rear firing ones. --OuroborosCobra 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It could be that the "3" and "4" bays are part of an unbuilt design -- they have labeled access ports should they ever be grafted on, but do not exist as such. Seems like the kind of signs that would end up being in place after a military appropriations discussion. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

that small black section on the neck looks like a torpedo port. the 3rd and 4th tubes might be in a > arrangement, exiting out a single port. -Mithril 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We've never seen an arrangment likie that on any other ship. Without more evidence, I'd have to say they aren't there. --OuroborosCobra 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the black thing is located above the module the other launch tubes are in. --OuroborosCobra 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But did anyone consider there may only be one aft launcher? Like the guy above, I'm broke, and can't get my hands on the DVDs, but it might make sense there was only room fore one aft launcher, which makes sense to me. Just throwing it out there.--CaptainCaca 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The little black thing is smaller than the both of the other two tubes. It just isn't big enough. Look at the picture. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I posted the torpedo bay pic below it. It looks to me, like it is big enough to house a single bay to me. Otherwise, why is it there?"--CaptainCaca 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, it didn't come out. I'm new at pictures. But take another look at the refit torpedo launcher anyways. --CaptainCaca 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the little black thing on the back of the neck. Quality pictures of the refit-Enterprise show it to have no port, but rather a ribbed grill surface. In the "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" -book it's function is explained. Supposedly the torpedoes give a slight recoil when they are launched, so this little aft port acts like a specialized thruster that counteracts the recoil. However the same book claims there is a rear torpedo launcher added in the Enterprise-A's design but mentions no location for it. (Pseudohuman 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Can the warp core of a Constitution-class vessel be ejected?Edit

can the warp core of a constitution class vessel be ejected?? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Possibly, but it's never been established in canon. For future reference, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Also, this type of question is better suited for out reference desk. --From Andoria with Love 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it. It's just my personal opinion. The NX class before it did not seem to have one, given that it wasn't an option on situations where it could have been easily needed. It was probably not considered given the warp speeds at the time... anyways, I'm rambling. It's just been my believe that older ships like the original 1701 had their cores fixed in the hull. I imagine that warp core designs weren't as modular as ones seen in Intrepid, Galaxy, and Sovereign class ships. The warp core of the 1701-A seemed to be directly tied closer to the pylons and nacelles. Also, there is no physical evidence that I know of on the outer hull. Majorthomme 00:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, it was capable of ejecting the Warp Nacells... -- Terran Officer 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Could be the reason for having a saucer seperation in the old style connie, the forced perpective engine was probably supposed to go back the length of the engineering hull, thus saucer seperation was the same thing as ejecting the core-- 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The warp core of the 1701 was obviously removable, as the engineering section changed appearance and so did the warp core in the times it was seen. So... I don't think they were "fixed" as such. As far as "physical evidence" on the outer hull, considering the unusual and dramatic circumstances of having to eject a warp core, there might not be any obvious sign on the hull. Conjecture: an emergency core ejection could have a series of shaped charges placed to blast a special hole in the hull to eject the core through. If you were designing from the idea that ejecting the core would be a last chance move and would require scuttling the ship or at best months of refits, it would be a reasonable design to destructively create a path for it. They never said it, but if you wanted to create a story set just before the first movie (where the ship took 18 months to refit) you could have them do it then... thus necessitating major reworking of everything. --JCoyote 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In the TOS Episode, "That Which Survives", Scotty attempts to repair the magnetic field that contains the antimatter in the warp core that was sabotaged by the Losira hologram. Spock orders Lt. Uhura to monitor the magnetic field as Scotty makes repairs. Apparently Uhura is given the responsibility of ejecting the antimatter pods. Perhaps, due to the construction of that particular warp core, the pods could be ejected separately from the core. Also, if you notice in scenes taking place in Engineering on the original 1701, the bulk of the core seemed to be in an isolated room. Maybe that secion of the core was isolated specifically to allow for emergency ejection. On the refit 1701, specifically on ST2, when the engineering hull was breached by Khan, the isolation doors intersected the main plasma feed to the nacelles. That may imply that the horizontal section can of the core can be detached from the main reaction chamber, allowing it to be ejected in a controlled way. There was also evidence of other isolation doors in engineering compartments so the crew can be protected during the ejection sequence. --Davisn456 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about the warp core of an original ("prime universe") Constitution-class ship can be ejected, but we now know that the warp core(s) of a Constitution-class in the alternate reality can be ejected. :) —Josiah Rowe 07:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

mass.. Edit

the ship is listed as massing 1 million metric tons. thats something of a major increase in density over the NX class with its 80,000, given that the Constitution is only slightly larger. it also means the Consituition is 1/4th the mass of the Galaxy class, while being nearly 10x smaller in volume. i'm just having a hard time seeing such a dense ship. (IIRC, the old TOS tech manual, albeit non-canon, had 190,000 tons. as did the starship spotter.) where did the 1 million ton figure come from? -Mithril 02:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where it came from. We need to check on that. Unfortunetly, there is a good chance that it is from an episode. The writers sometimes don't stop and think when they are writing these masses. Take a look at Borg scout ship, for example. The thing looks to be about the size of a runabout, but in the episode they say it has a mass of about 2.5 million metric tons. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

i agree as to the odd masses we sometimes get. i would really like to find out where the million tons came from though. the borg scout was intended to be a factual statement (perhaps borg tech is just really high mass and density), but some lines might be hyperbole, inflated stats to make what they're saying sound more impressive. it would be nice to see which one this stat came from. (i also double checked my starship spotter. original model Constitution listed as 190,000 tons, and the refit at 210,000 tons. they left off half the armaments of the original connie, but it was done before "In a Mirror, Darkly", so all you had to go on were the foreward phasers and torp tube seen in TOS.) -Mithril 18:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Borg Scout ship stat comes from dialogue in the episode "I Borg":
  • DATA: "The vessel is traveling at warp seven-point-six. Mass: two-point-five million metric tons, configuration: ...cubical."
  • RIKER: "The Borg..."
  • DATA: "Its dimensions indicate that it is a scout ship similar to the one that crashed."
Something that small weighing that much would have probably sunk into the ground at the crash site, yet shown on screen, it did not. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ah, i guess i wasn't clear on my statement. i wanted to know the line about the enterprise mass came from, and if it was hyperbole or factual. i've seen "I Borg" several times, though i never noticed that line. -Mithril 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The mass of the Enterprise was stated to be "almost a million gross tons" in "Mudd's Women". A gross ton is 2240lbs, or 1016kg. More on the matter can be found on my Volumetrics page at ST-v-SW.Net DSG2k 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

a little wikipedia search finds , which indicates that 'gross tonnage' for ships is a measure of Displacement, not mass. so the Constitution-class volume would take up the same volume as 1 million tons of water. from the Tonnage article on wikipedia- Gross Tonnage refers to the volume of all ship's enclosed spaces (from keel to funnel) measured to the outside of the hull framing.-Mithril 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue of gross tonnage to death elsewhere, hence the text on my site I linked to, which includes reference to the use for gross ton of 100 cubic feet or so. However, that use is invalid in this context, because the ship would have to be huge for that to be the case. For kicks, let's do the math ... the ship's volume which I estimate in the text to be 211,248 cubic meters indicates a gross tonnage of 74,600. Let's say you're right, and that Scotty indicated the ship's gross tonnage to be 900,000 or so. That's 900,000,000 cubic feet of volume, or 25,485,161.9 cubic meters. Using the volume coefficient based on 289 meters and 211,248 cubic meters for the normal ship, your re-imagined Constitution's length would be 1,428 meters . . . or almost 4,700 feet. That's over twice as long as the Sovereign Class.
So our choices are to assume an unnecessary context for Scotty's statement, one which runs contrary to everything else we know of the Constitution Class starship, or we accept his statement for what it logically refers to. Your call. - DSG2k 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

with no better alternative, we'll leave it as is. i still beleive that 1 million tons is probably not accurate either however. the line could still be hyperbole, or the result of the poorly defined size of the ship in TOS. -Mithril 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Screen vs. Turbolift On the CenterlineEdit

The statement that "mounted into the room's forward bulkhead, on the ship's centerline, was the main viewscreen," is simply wrong. The visual evidence first seen in "The Cage" clearly indicates that the command module is offset. The turbolift shaft can be seen outside the ship and, once inside, we see a crewman walk out of the lift.- GNDN 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not the bridge is offset has been the subject of much debate. On the one had there are those who say it is, while others say it isn't. At TrekBBS, for example, proponents of both have waged war with massive threads featuring various scalings, diagrams, and argumentation. "The Cage" supports neither view explicitly, since the scene would not only indicate a turbolift not lined up with the so-called turboshaft, but further the bridge would not be level with the saucer.
Personally I favor the notion that the bridge is centered and not cattywompus, but given the excessive struggles over the matter perhaps an NPOV viewpoint would be preferred. -- DSG2k 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Originally, the turbolift was to line up center right behind the captain's chair, and the bridge module was set front to back. The model of the Enterprise was lined up accordingly. However, during the initial filming of "The Cage", the directors noted that Chris Pike was blocking the view of the lift. Seeing this as a problem, the turbolift was swapped with another part of the modular bridge, scooting it over. The model was not changed. This is what led to the 'offset' problem.
The first 'official' explanation for this came in the Constitution Class Deck Plans, from Franz Joseph, and authorized by Gene Roddenberry. In those plans, the offset is indicated to exlpain the discrepancy between the bridge set and the filming model. This is repeated in the Tech Manual a couple of years later.
So, officially, and since there's been nothing official to refute this, the only 'canon' answer possible is that the bridge is, in fact, rotated for some reason. (Vanguard)
In the original bridge set, only a few of the sections were removeable, or "wild". The turbolift doors were not one of those wild sections, so the alleged shuffling of stations described above is impossible.
As for which way the bridge faced, as far as Matt Jefferies and everyone else on the set was concerned, it faced forward. How it all lined up with the model wasn't a concern at the time, because 1) it's just a tv show, and 2) who the hell was gonna care in forty years? (Captain Robert April)

The command module cannot be placed off center due to the danger this presents to the vessel. It is physically and physcologically unsound to do so. The command offficers would feel uncomfortable during flight, which leads to distraction, which leads to mistakes, which leads to a really big and bright fireball.

The command module is not mounted off center. The turbolift door is. The turbolift system has the ability to store the systems cars in a waiting area for high demand areas to keep up with the traffic load. The cars for the bridge are stored in the outer hull area of the bridge module. They move into postion off the centerline to access the bridge. Then they enter the main tube on the centerline to lower the cars into the system. Once this happens another car from right or left storage goes off center to serve the bridge. The turboshaft outer hull can be seen behind the bridge outer hull on the Constitution class. Two tubes service the bridge module on the refit. It has a car storage feature as well. The new design is for system redundancy in case of failure due to battle damage, system failure or unforeseen circumstances encountered during the ships mission. It is a mistake to think of the turbolift as an terrestrial elevator. Terrestrial elevators do not move side to side as well as up and down. The responce time seen on the bridge is beyond that of an elevator. What you see on the bridge is a docked turbolift car. You have to physically hold a handle to let the car know you are there and conscience. If you let go it stops, the system computer evaulates your status and then takes action. The computer also controls traffic in the systems. The bridge module is organized from the inside out. First is the command module and flight deck, then a circular service corridor to access the bridge systems, next is the innerhull wall, then the turbolift/ engineering ring areas of the outer hull and finally the hard vacuum of space.

The Making of Star Trek, The Starfleet Technical Manual, and the official blueprints all show that the turbolift is on the centerline and the viewscreen is offset. I know of no canonical source that states that the viewscreen is on the centerline. Unless someone can cite an example, like it or not, the line "mounted into the room's forward bulkhead, on the ship's centerline, was the main viewscreen" is incorrect and is counter to canon. Stekev 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle cruiser? only if you are a klingon Edit

The article was just changed from "Heavy cruiser" to "Battlecruiser", citing Star Trek III. The problem is that it was called a "battle cruiser" (two words, in the script) by the Klingons, and MA is written as Federation database. I am looking for a reference to Heavy cruiser, and may be reverting this. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Gene Roddenberry or Matt Jefferies or someone in the production staff designated it as a Heavy Cruiser. What the Klingons call it is irrelevant, since they are most likely expressing an opinion or a misconception in calling it a battlecruiser. And I can assure you Starfleet wouldn't have designated a ship built for exploration as a "battlecruiser". --From Andoria with Love 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the Enterprise was labeled as a heavy cruiser on the bridge layouts in Star Trek III, according to the background at Heavy cruiser. Reverting. --From Andoria with Love 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I added the Paramount Pictures copyright petty-fogging to the recently added image, I am not at all convinced that the ship depicted here is a refit, much less a USS Constitution refit. And since we are on the record, this USS Enterprise-A could well be another refit re-commissioned, or an entirely new vessel. A well-lighted image of the refit Enterpise from Star Trek: The Motion Picture would be most welcome. --GNDN 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
it says it is Constitution-class, not the USS Constitution... the term "refit" refers to the fact that it is of the same configuration as the refit Constitution-class Enterprise vessel, not that it has been refit itself.
I'd love to speculate and "make-up" imaginative histories of whether these ships were refit in any specific way, based on their registries and age, but if we didnt see or hear about it onscreen, its really not Memory Alpha's business to say. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To bring this discussion to an end: This is what the Enterprise's bridge display says: Heavy Cruiser -- Kobi 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is even a picture of this on MA. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitution diagram

canon evidence

Joseph Franz works aren't considered canon.
"For many years, these reference works formed the backbone for treatments of the Star Trek setting. Their general assumptions about Starfleet and the galaxy as a whole were the basis of the Star Fleet Universe and FASA's version of Star Trek, as well as most novels about Star Trek. This book was one of the materials that was stripped of its canonical status at around the same time as FASA's version of Star Trek and its ideas about Star Trek were ignored from that point on." The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanLucPicard1 (talk • contribs).

While it was taken from a Franz work, it was seen on screen, and by content and resource policies, it is considered canon. If you don't like the policy, then get it changed at the talk page for the policy. This is not the way to do it. Please follow the rules here, or propose a rule change in the proper place. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a lecture from you. I was watching Star Trek before you were born. You call it what you want. Although that image was captured on screen, it was taken from Joseph Franz works, a non-canon reference. I finished here, but I am sure you spend 99.9% of your time on Star Trek. The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanLucPicard1 (talk • contribs).

Nice knowing you, and your disregard for something on screen being canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another one bites the dust. Geez, you'd think these people would know better... personally, I'm getting sick of it. Yet another user can't handle our policies so they have a temper-tantrum, leave and bang the door on the way out. Oh, so you've been watching Star Trek since before we were born? That's great -- well, keeping with the cocky mood, allow me to retort by saying that we've been working on Memory Alpha a lot longer than you. The policies and Gene Roddenberry himself stated that anything on-screen is canon. Apparently, you can't handle that, which is kind of pathetic, really. So, farewell to thee, and such. --From Andoria with Love 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize in advance if this discussion has become too uncomfortable for others to continue. During "A Taste of Armageddon", Anan 7 orders Eminiar VII's planetary defense system to open fire on the Starship Enterprise, repeatedly referring to it as a "star cruiser". (Whether this was two separate words or a compund word, I cannot determine; I have no script to site, just what the viewer sees and hears.) Whether Anan 7's "star cruiser" reference was arbitrary, or maybe an historic throwback to the old U.S.S. Valiant of 50 years before, or maybe derived from Eminian monitoring of Federation subspace chatter about the Enterprise, we have no idea. I would point out that while "battle cruiser" is a more militaristic reference, there really is not that much difference between the various terms "battle cruiser", "heavy cruiser", and "star cruiser". I would also point out that Gene Roddenberry's novelization of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" also features a brief passage in which he waffles (my opinion) between referring to the newly refit Enterprise as a "heavy cruiser" and a "battleship".
This also prompted me to consider some of his other musings and philosophies through the years. It has been written that Roddenberry adamantly opposed revisiting "The Enterprise Incident" in ST:TNG, and when a fan wrote into the official fan club magazine after the broadcast of "The Defector" in Jan., 1990, asking why the Romulans still had the cloak as an "advantage" after Kirk stole one from the Empire at least three-quarters of a century before, Roddenberry responded "our people are explorers... they don't sneak around". This seemed silly, given the use of a cloak-like holographic blind in "Who Watches the Watchers" just a couple months earlier. Later, after Roddenberry's death, Mr. Berman apparently had no problem realizing a new Star Trek series as a full-fledged war drama, including a Federation warship (the Defiant), complete with super-phasers, uber-torpedoes and a cloaking device. Then there was the semi-apocryphal future-tense Enterprise-D of "All Good Things...", glistening with more weapons and a third nacelle. (Note the new and improved Enterprise-E and other newer ships have only two) All this shows the schism in Star Trek's principles. Is the Enterprise, of any era, a warship, a battleship, or just a plain old starship? It really depends on how you feel about the direction Star Trek has taken since Mr. Roddenberry passed away. I'd say that canon backs me up on the notion that, third nacelle or no, the Enterprise of any era (except possibly the NCC-1701-E) represents the best and biggest in terms of ability, versatility, and outright prowess. While the relatively (to her era) smaller Enterprise-E may be the exception, just about any other Enterprise in her own respective era could be called a "Star cruiser", a "battle cruiser", a "heavy cruiser" or perhaps most aptly, a *dreadnought*. In fact, if the Federation Starfleet of the mid-23rd century wanted to apply a label to their top-line starships which could have multiple meanings, military and otherwise, it could be "cruiser" as easily as it could be dreadnought. That would certainly cast a new light on the nature of Starfleet naval force, wouldn't it? Maybe even the late Mr. Roddenberry might approve. His novelization of "TMP" seems to suggest as much... Ol' Horta Face 05:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You know I don't belive that Saddam Hussein named the missle of choice for his country (during the first Gulf War) the SCUD. I am certain that it was a name assigned by NATO. My point is that us and our enemies name each others equipment. Who knows there might not be a word for Heavy Cruiser in Klingonese. By the way I have been watching Star Trek since I was 6 years old. That was 1966. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimmeyourphaser (talk • contribs).
My take on this issue is that, "Officially" Star Fleet classifies this ship as a Heavy Cruiser. In the TV series we often see the Enterprise administering its far flung colonies and outposts as well as projecting Federation influence on its distant allies, this more closely resembles the profile of a Heavy Cruiser NOT a Battle Cruiser so I think in that sense the classification is sound. However, the class may be better armed than a typical Heavy Cruiser to the point where it is regarded by hostile aliens as a Battle Cruiser. There is a precedent for this in the United Sates Navy, the Alaska Class Heavy Cruisers were for all intents and purposes Battle Cruisers despite their official designation. -Mister Atoz

First Heavy Cruiser Edit

What the fudge? Where the hell is this coming from? We don't know all the classes of Federation Starships, and have nothing (IIRC) between Daedalus class and this one. Why in gods name would we speculate on what happened in starship design over that entire century? --OuroborosCobra talk 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New Class of Constitution-class Edit

Why don't you list the Enterprise-A and the ships built after her as a new class, like Constitution-class Mark II. This is a common designation in the US Navy, example the Aegis cruisers with the new equipment are MK II flights. Someone has said that we can't use the US Navy as a basis for how Starfleet works, but this is exactly what Gene Roddenberry did. He served, and used naval names from through out history(Enterprise, Yorktown, Lexington,Exeter, etc). Also about the Enterprise-A being the Yorktown before being renamed, is in my opinion bogus. Again, Naval Tradition dictates that you never rename a ship after its finished construction. Its considered bad luck, this goes back hundreds of years. My understand of the comment by Roddenberry about this was that he originally was going to name the ship in Star Trek, Yorktown. Then he jokingly in the same interview, said that the Enterprise may have been the Yorktown mentioned earlier in the film, since he doubted Starfleet could have built a brand new ship so fast. Plus in ST 5, Scotty clear says "This new ship must have been put together by monkeys. Oh she's got a fine engine, but half the doors won't open." My argument would be that by ST 2,3,and 4 Starfleet would have been making the Constitution Refit design brand new from the keel up, making it a new class(Enterprise-class or Constitution II) with new equipment like that on the Excelsior-class. This may be why all of the original Con refits were being decommissioned by ST III.

First off, there is no canon evidence to do this. Second off, as far as I know, the Navy does not call it "Ticonderoga Mk. II" (Ticonderoga being the Aegis cruiser), they simply split them into different "flights". All of this has already been discussed on this very talk page at Talk:Constitution class/archive#The Constitution refit/ Enterprise class.. Please see that discussion. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Also about the Enterprise-A being the Yorktown before being renamed, is in my opinion bogus. Again, Naval Tradition dictates that you never rename a ship after its finished construction." This quote is incorrect. As evidence, see the original USS Midway, CVE-63. Named in honor or the recently-won Battle of Midway, the escort carrier was renamed (eleven months after commissioning and service), so that the name "Midway" could be assigned to a new Midway-class fleet carrier.

Main Bridge in 2254Edit

Constitution class bridge 2250s

A much better screencap that both shows and compliments the scope of the original bridge

The picture we have for the bridge in 2254 shows a small portion of the area. It is also a early test photograph as it shows the unfinished floor and not-so-refurbished command chair. I'd like to replace the picture with this one, once the protection lock is lifted of course. AC84 20:50, 10 September 2006

I agree.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please add this picture, if only for the view of the "door mat" in front of the turbolift. --GNDN 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, there was nothing stopping you from using the new image. The article was protected, not the image files. I simply uploaded the image you guys wanted (File:Originalbridge.jpg) over the image in the article (File:Constitution class bridge 2250s.jpg). Just before anyone tries to tell me you needed to be an admin to do this, I'm not an admin, and I did it. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New Image of Primary Hull Edit

With the release of images of the new model of the Enterprise for the remastered TOS, we finally have a good image to replace that problematic one we were all scratching our heads about a few weeks ago. I went ahead and uploaded it, so that's THAT problem solved... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 07:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Type of Launcher Edit

For what reason is it necessary to specify that they are exactly 'photon torpedo launchers'? The connotation is that all the only thing they can launch are photon torpedoes, and nothing more. The term 'torpedo launcher' (especially when backed up by the appropriate article) better describes the capability of the system (although I admit that for me 'torpedo launcher' is still not generic enough.) Kv1at3485 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Have we ever seen them launch anything but photons? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spock and coffin. Unless all things with that particular type of casing are automatically deemed as 'torpedoes'. That would be an interesting method to determine nomenclature. Kv1at3485 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Because we wouldn't want people to think the ship can fire spatial torpedoes, photonic torpedoes, or quantum torpedoes. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I remember, Spock in a coffin was a hollowed out photon torpedo. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It used the same type of [i]casing[/i], but I can't see how the casing by itself makes it a torpedo. As for not being able to fire other types of devices: if the device can fit into the tube (a matter of the dimensions of the casing, not what's in the casing) why not? We already know that such things have happened before, two differently shaped casings fired out of the same launcher (spatial and photonic torpedoes.on ENT, torpedoes and probes in TNG and probably DS9 and VOY...) Kv1at3485 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since they were photon torpedo launchers, and since the article needs to specify what the ship fired from those launchers (only photon torpedoes, as far as we know), I'm not sure what the big issue is here. Maybe that's just 'cause it's late and I'm tired... --From Andoria with Love 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Warp factor, again... Edit

In the archive, we stated that the Enterprise reached Warp 14 and that there would have been several warp factors mentioned that went far beyond that speed. What changed so that we noted Warp 9 by now?

There is also a difference to all Constitution class articles through the different languages - even they are different to each other:

  • the Spanish one states Warp 8 for both versions
  • the Dutch one states Warp 8 for the original configuration and Warp 12 for the Refit
  • the German one "agrees" to MA/nl with Warp 8 for the original configuration but gives Warp 9 for the Refit.

I guess here's definitely going something wrong, eh? : [defchris] :: [ talk ] : 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely a legitimate issue here of how to interpret the specs for the original-series Starship Enterprise. Much of the rationale that gave rise to Star Trek technical fiction such as Franz Joseph's 1975 "Technical Manual" was actually confirmed in canon; if you look at "Obsession", it does appear to confirm that a Constitution-class starship's "emergency speed" is Warp factor 8 (witness Scotty's warning "...we'll blow up any second!") and the "maximum safe cruising speed" as Warp 6. The hot pursuit in "Balance of Terror", "Arena" and "Operation: Annihilate!" seemed to confirm this, and "The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and Susan Sackett also seemed to back that up.
It is true that the Enterprise exceeded Warp 8 on other occasions. The speed went "off the dial" in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" during their re-creation of a time warp, but it wasn't until Nomad came along in "The Changeling" that an outside force started messing with the Enterprise's engines to produce what were clearly extraordinary results (double-digit warp factors, which Scotty dismissed as "Impossible!"). It looks like whatever the Kelvans might've left behind after "By Any Other Name" (remember, Rojan said they would modify the engines to achieve inter-galactic velocities "far beyond the reach of your science") had a lasting effect on Federation technology. Kirk told Nomad that double-digit warp factors would cause a dangerous structural strain on the Enterprise when he asked the "spacehappy" robo-monster to discontinue. Apparently, whatever modifications the Kelvans made gave Scotty enough clues to allow the Enterprise to sprint away from the Romulans briefly at Warp 9 ("The Enterprise Incident") and keep the ship together long enough to travel 990.7 light-years at speeds between Warp 8.7 and Warp 14.1 before powering down ("That Which Survives").
As for the notion of the refit "TMP" Enterprise listing specs of Warp 8 cruise and Warp 12 redline, I used to accept those myself. But studio politics that can be traced right back to Mr. Roddenberry himself caused a schism between what is "canon" and what is "licensed works" from Paramount. Please believe me, I beat my head against the wall trying to understand this one and finally gave up. My rationale for accepting the notion that the refit Enterprise cruises at Warp 7 (as seen in "TMP") and redlines at Warp 9 (supported by Roddenberry in both the "Making of" and the "TMP" novelization) is that Warp factors are geometric quanta and if it took 30 years for Archer's Starfleet to come up with a "Warp 5 engine", it doesn't seem credible that Constitution-class ships could leap from a top speed of Warp 8 to one of Warp 12 so easily, and in so little time.
So the best way to make sense of this warp speed issue is to say that while Constitution-class starships of the era of 2268 and beyond were capable of sprinting at speeds exceeding Warp 8 under their own power, and could even exceed Warp 14, such speeds could just as easily result in the ship's self-destruction from either superheated reactor or structural strain. This does not even begin to deal with the "time continuum" catapult issue ("Is There In Truth No Beauty?") that high warp speeds apparently risk as well. Ol' Horta Face 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, I hate to say this, but I think these really long comments have to stop soon. Remember that these talk pages are not just general forum threads, they have to apply directly to discussion on the contents of the article, particularly to changing it. I don't see that happening with most of these extremely long comments. See Help:Talk pages for details.
Now, as for the sudden speed change, let me remind yo of another bit of history. It took us more than 40 years to get from flying at 30 miles per hour to flying at 500 miles per hour. 10 years later we were flying at 1,900+ miles per hour. Less than ten years after that, 4,500+ miles per hour. Then it took 40 years to go much faster. Point being, technology and advancements can come in spurts.--OuroborosCobra talk 05:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well ... I just had doubts on which MA uses the "right" max. speed, because our article was about to become a featured article so is the MA/en's (it actually is by now btw). I didn't want any of those "almost canonical reference literature" because most of them are considered falsified by later series and movies.

Federation technology sure does advance and ships are getting faster and faster but wasn't my point. Are there any issues for the regular maximum speed? Which MA version is right? : [defchris] :: [ talk ] : 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See my comments under "Speculation" near the top of this talk page. I don't know if it will help, but that's my take on it. Ol' Horta Face 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"modified constitution refit" Edit

I noticed that someone added a reference to a "modified Constitution refit" under the Constituition refit section of the article. Beside it is a picture of a model from Booby Trap. Is this really canon, considering the model may have just been a depiction of a ship that doesn't exist? 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The model itself is canon, meaning that, whether the ship existed or not, the design is canon. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the text states that the blacks hatches on the saucer were shuttle bays. I don't think those were ever called shuttle bays on screen, so maybe we should reword the reference? -- 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

agreed.--!Captain M.K.B. 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok done. 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Starship=Connie Edit

The following was moved from User talk:Shran.

First we have the "Starship Class" dedication plaque on Enterprise's bridge establishing class. Then we have Merrik in "Bread and Circuses" stating that Kirk commands not a "spaceship", but a STARship "a very special kind of vessel". That term is a specific reference to Enterprise and her sisters. Later on we have Scotty's "Constitution class" phaser diagrams on his display screen, as other's have noted PLUS the "Constitution class plans he studies in ST VI PLUS Picard's identification of the Enterprise as "Constitution class" in "Relics" PLUS we have Defiant's plaque in IAMD SHOWING "Constitution Class".

Thus we have sufficient canon to establish that Starship=Connie in TOS reference. Now, we have quotable dialoge in "Court Martial" and "The Immunity Syndrome" esablishing Republic and Intrepid as "starships". Those are canon data points, buttressed by the Encyclopedia entries as supporting evidence, if you must include them (the canon data is sufficient).

I'll refrain from doing any further reverting until we thrash this out.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. All that is evidence that the Connie is considered a starship, not that all starships are Connies. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not really sufficient canon... seems more like circumstantial evidence or personal observation. Nothing was directly stated. Don't get me wrong, I've heard of the theory before stating "Starship Class equals Constitution Class therefore all references to Starship are references to the Constitution Class", but nothing has been firmly established in canon. Now, if we had someone behind-the-scenes on record as stating that all references to a "Starship" were meant as a reference to the same type of class as the Enterprise, that would be something. As far as I know, though, it's only a theory. --From Andoria with Love 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a different response typed out at Shran's column, but lost it when I went to save so I'll take a different tack.

You admit I have canon support for my contention, Shran. You say I have "not sufficient canon"...either it's canon or it isn't. Never, not once in TOS is the term starship used to describe ships other than Enterprise and her class-sisters. They use terms like "star cruisers", "freighters", "survey vessels", or the generic "spaceship".

Every time the word "starship" is mentioned in TOS where we have a visual of said ship, it is a ship like Enterprise. Every time. So, if you accept that Enterprise-nil is a Connie, then so must all ships mentioned as "starships" in TOS are also Connies.

Even as late as TMP, other ships identified by type are "scouts" or "dreadnoughts", while Ent-nil is still referred to as a "starship". The first canon use of "starship" on a non-Connie is the Reliant in TWOK.

Put aside the last 3 decades worth of other series' use of the term as a generic and look at what the TOS writers meant at the time.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What other Federation starship classes do we even see in TOS? I'm still not seeing lines that say "Starship is only the Connie" as opposed to "Connies are starships". Yes, no others were mentioned, but that doesn't mean they did not exist, and none of the lines seem to preclude others existing. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"You admit I have canon support for my contention, Shran." I did? Where? I said it wasn't "sufficient canon" (a term you used). And just because we've seen visual evidence of Constitution-class starships that are referred to as starships doesn't mean there were not non-Connie classes out there that were also called starships... if that makes sense. As for what the the TOS writers meant at the time – again, do we have any source for that? If so, great! If not, then, well... :/ --From Andoria with Love 06:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, new supporting evidence just in (thanks to Psion and a few others over at TrekBBS who did the look up for me as I can't find my copy of this book:

The names of the ships of the same class as Enterprise are rostered in "The Making of Star Trek", by Stephen Whitfield (I was 99% certain they were, but I wanted to get specific citations before I said anything). Whitfield took his information directly from production materials he had access to.

I quote Psion's post, complete with page cites:

The August 8, 1967 memo from D.C. Fontana to Gene Roddenberry entitled "STAR FLEET -- 12 STARSHIPS" is reproduced on page 163 of the thirteenth printing. It lists the following vessels:

El Dorado

The memo continues, "Alternates include the names of some famous fighting ships of the past, plus a couple of international variations we migh consider, Star Fleet being composed of a united service.

Farragut Mentioned as destroyed in "Obsession"
Bonhomme Richard
Monitor or Merimac, depending upon your loyalties
Tori (bird)
Ari (lion)
Krieger (warrior)

Please consider."

Bob Justman then replies with his list of preferences from Fontana's list: Enterprise, Essex, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Endeavor, Eagle, Constellation, Hornet, Wasp, Lafayette.

He mentions other nations that might be worthy of having candidates and even suggests a ship with a name that sounds of Vulcan origin.

Finally, on page 165, the list of names for starships is established as: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Faragut, Valiant, and Intrepid. "The latter four are listed as destroyed in various episodes."

Note that these ships aren't considered to be of the "Enterprise" class, but, according to the Fontana memo referenced above, part of the "Starship" class.

The last line is apparently the result of me mentioning ships of "the Enterprise's class" which he took to mean "Enterprise class" thus his restatement that this roster is for "Starship class" vessels, per Fontana above.

We obviously also have to add the Defiant to that list, but that's irrelevant to this particular discussion. The linkage is now complete, with Republic and Intrepid as members of the Starship class, later to be known as the Constitution class...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I can't believe I didn't think of checking that... Now that we know that it was their intention that ships referred to as Starships were supposed to be of the same class as Enterprise, I don't think there's any reason not to go by that. Nonetheless, I think we should wait it out a day or two to see if anyone objects to it or has any further input on this subject. Nice work! :) --From Andoria with Love 07:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, and I agree. Sorry if I came of as being nasty about the whole situation. I thought this was "common knowledge" information, so I honestly didn't expect there to be a big "sturm und drang" about it.

Btw, I just remembered a line from "Relics" that ALSO supports the idea of "starship" as an entirely seperate classification of vessel.

From the scene between Scotty and Picard on the recreation of the Enterprise-nil's Bridge:

SCOTT: You know, I served aboard eleven ships in my career...freighters, cruisers, starships,... but this is the only one I ever think about... the only one I miss.

When things settle down and we "fix" the articles in question, I suggest we "carbon copy" this discussion to their talk pages in order to not have this problem crop up again.

Once more, apologies if I came across as a jerk.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if that piece of behind-the-scenes info is valid. I don't see anything that stops the term "starship" from referring to top-of-the-line Starfleet heavy cruisers, such as the Constitution-class, the Miranda-class (mentioned as a starship in the Star Trek IV script), the yet-to-be-built Excelsior-class and undoubtedly other starship classes of the day.
In the behind-the-scenes memo, they refer to those ships as "Starship class" ships, but I always took that to mean the type of ship that Constitution class ships belong to. Obviously, the definition had changed from the 22nd century when Enterprise was considered a starship, as it wouldn't be in the late 23rd and 24th centuries, but there's nothing in canon that refers to the Constitution class as equal to all "starships." In fact, it does prove the contrary, even if you limit it to TOS. In "The Return of the Archons", the USS Archon is specifically referred to as the "starship Archon." Should that be included as a Constitution-class vessel, from 100 years before?--Tim Thomason 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit that that reference slipped by me (the ep not being one of my favorites). My response would be that that is ONE reference (which can be easily dismissed as a production error, like the infamous "phaser firing torpedo tube" in TNG). That the term became "genericized" later, even as early as TMP/TWOK and carrying through modern Trek, has no bearing on what the producer intent was in '67-'69.

Even if we grant that "starship" is used as a generic designator via the Archon reference (which I do not), the Fontana/Justman memos make it clear that the list they are working on is for the names of "Starship class" vessels, ie Enterprise (whose dedication plaque flat out says "Starship class") and her class-sisters, the "twelve like her in the fleet". Republic and Intrepid are on that final list. Therefore they are Starship-class vessels, later redesignated Constitution-class.

The article already supports Starship class=Constitution class anyways. See the first paragraph of the article, and the fact that "Starship class" redirects to the "Constitution class" article.Capt Christopher Donovan 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we might consider broadening the scope of this discussion beyond the "Constitution class" page and frame of mind. As I recall, a similar discussion debating the finer points of what a starship is can be found on talk:starship, that was never resolved. With that said, it might be necessary to explore more dialog than what is stated above that helped describe the factors used in TOS (and beyond) in defining a starship:
General Descriptors:
*"Starship?" / "That supposed to mean it flies through space?" / "That's right." (VOY: "The 37's")
*"The Enterprise is a starship, capable of traveling through space." (TNG: "Ship in a Bottle")
*"Are we going to fly in your ship?" / "He said it was a shuttle, not a ship." (VOY: "Innocence"; ok, so not specific to this conversation, but notable in terms of defining distinctions between spacecraft.)
Configuration: TOS: "The Doomsday Machine" suggests this as a factor in defining the USS Constellation:
* "I have it on the sensors, Captain. By configuration -- a starship. stopped in space. She appears to be drifting."
Power utilization: TOS: "Journey to Babel" suggests this as a factor in defining a starship:
* "The thing that confused me was the power utilization curve. It made them seem more powerful than a starship or anything known to us. That ship was constructed for a suicide mission. Since they never intended to return to their home base, they could use 100% power on their attacks."
Mission: TOS: "The Cloud Minders" suggests this as a factor in defining a starship:
* "Starships do not transport cargo." / * "In times of emergency, they do anything, and believe me, botanical plague is an emergency."
Authority: TOS: "Mudd's Women" had several lines suggesting that "a starship" was simply an authoritative vessel, "failure to answer a starship's signal", perhaps something akin to a military-type vessel, or police vessel.
* "Well, how the devil am I supposed to know this is a starship, Captain? A strange ship comes alongside. Naturally I tried to evade you. Starship captain, you exceeded your authority when you drove me and mine into a shower of asteroids."
* "Mr. Mudd, you're charged with galaxy travel without a flight plan, without an identification beam, and failure to answer a starship's signal, thus a menace to navigation."
* "You'll need medical help, cargo runs, starship protection."
There are various other similar references about 'misusing a starship's authority' in TOS: "The Conscience of the King", "The Trouble with Tribbles". TNG: "Peak Performance" had a reference in a similar context too, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in reference to a Constitution class:
* "Leader, there is another Federation ship closing. A starship!"
In terms of contradicting evidence, that does not seem to support "starship" being synonymous with "Constitution class", but as well, other classes (in terms of TOS usage of the nomenclature, and in addition to the Archon reference):
*"Inspection tour of a cadet vessel. Old Class J starship. One of the baffle plates ruptured." (TOS: "The Menagerie, Part I"; which seems to contradict "Mudd's Woman" dialog, as Mudd's ship was also apparently a "J class")
*"I must fight to remember that this is an intelligent, highly advanced individual, the Captain of a starship, like myself, undoubtedly a dangerously clever opponent." (TOS: "Arena")
While I'm sure there are more, these were what quickly came to mind, and so what can be taken from this is that there is something more unique about the term "starship" versus spacecraft, space cruiser, star cruiser, space ship, there just isn't enough evidence to support what that difference is exactly, nor to peg it on a single class of ship.
Also, regarding the references from "The Making of Star Trek", I am familiar with that reference as well, and I'm not sure if that really shouldn't be treated any differently than the Star Trek Encyclopedia as a source, which is why we removed all class references to various unseen ships from the main section of those respective ship's articles. Quickly browsing through that section of the book, the memos never made it clear that this is how it was going to be. They simply come across more as a "wish list" than an "official list". --Alan 22:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan you are muddying the waters unneccesarily by continuing to bring in post-TOS references as they are 100% IRRELEVANT to the discussion as to producer intent in 67-69. But I'll let that go.

We still have a valid production source that states "Starfleet - 12 Starships", seperating out a particular group of ships, including Enterprise (and Republic and Intrepid) in that group. Enterprise is canonically a Starship class vessel (or, if you insist, a Starship class starship) per her dedication plaque (as was the E-A at launch, per HER plaque, but that's beside the point). Every single ship whose name is on that list who also made a visual appearance on screen was the same class ship as Enterprise. Dialoge aside, those two data points are strong evidence that the list represents a single class of ship (which again, was the stated intent of the producers at the time the list was drafted).

For our purposes, that's ALL we need do on this point: establish that all those ships were "class sisters". Now we can move on to examine the evidence that "Starship class" became "Constitution class". Well, we can (again), if you insist, but it's been done to death. The real piece of the puzzle we needed was the one above (that the named ships were "Starship class" to begin with). It became obvious early on that "Starship class" sounded silly, and they began to drop hints (like Scotty's monitor screen), then later flat out stated it (even as blatantly as putting "Constitution class" on Defiant 's plaque in IAMD.Capt Christopher Donovan 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think exploring all relevant possibilities as "muddying the waters" because I am being thorough. The term "starship" is simply much too general, and based on the various datapoints that I explored from TOS, which I noticed you completely ignored. There is more to it than simply the association with the designation of "starship class". This is especially of interest then you throw the "Peak Performance" reference into the mix, which was related to what I was discussing with regards to the use of terminology in TOS. Then again, had you read what I wrote, instead of stopping at the first non-TOS reference, you would have realized that.
I'd reply to your "valid production source that states 'Starfleet - 12 Starships'" comment, but I would again be repeating myself, except for the fact that relying solely on Whitfield's analysis, one can find two flaws, the Republic was never stated as being destroyed, and if we choose to accept that the Valiant, you should keep in mind that it was never referenced as a "starship", but a "star cruiser." And again, what of the other TOS-era references to "starship" that clearly were not in reference to a Connie? How does those points keep getting conveniently "forgotten"?
So instead of repeating myself anymore, there is absolutely no reason not to list a class name to a ship that did not appear on screen in the main content of the article. Canon policy alone supports this. This is why they are already mentioned in the background section of their respective articles, because the information is speculative, even if by the production staff. --Alan 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All of his references are TOS except for the first section that is admittedly "not specific to this conversation" and a later TNG reference that is similar to the TOS references. Regardless, this is important to help understand what "starship" means in Star Trek which does need to be solved, and where he was moving the discussion towards. We should never "ignore" Post-TOS references. That goes against what the site is about.
Hypothetically, if the USS Yorktown was later referred to in canon as a Federation class vessel, then that's what we would say it was, even if Justman wrote a memo stating that the Republic "is and ever shall be a Starship (e.g. Constitution) class starship." The memo is excellent background information, but the fact that 4 different classes of vessels are referred to as "starships" in TOS leads me to believe that the memo was used for any Federation ships mentioned, and the ones seen were only "Connies" because they couldn't or wouldn't afford to make a Constitution-like model. If Pike's "Class J starship" was named, I wouldn't be surprised if they called it the El Dorado.
Since TOS seems to use 4 or 5 different definitions for Starfleet as Alan pointed out above, I'd say that any time the term "starship" is used, we shouldn't automatically assume it's to a Constitution-class vessel, even if it's named after one of the "planned" ones. Plus there's the whole matter that we've tried to limit the amount of Constitutions as much as possible.--Tim Thomason 01:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Starship Class" Edit

I think it's important for people to realize that the "Starship Class" as it appears on Kirk's original dedication plaque does NOT refer to the actual "model" of starship that Kirk commanded. In TOS there were several "types" of Federation ships, classified under Spaceship or Starship (and non-canonically, Dreadnaught). The SS Beagle commanded by Captain Merrick was classified as a Spaceship, whereas Kirk's ship is classified as a Starship, for example of a canon usage. That's the "class" the plaque is referring to; the classification of the ship, not the actual "model" name. It's easy to go in armed with the high-and-mighty TNG knowledge, assume that TOS simply made mistakes because it wasn't "fully developed" or what-not, and assume that such "mistakes" need to be fixed in order to conform to a different style...but it's not a mistake, it was an intentional decision on the part of the production crew. --Alex Munro 06:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This has really been talked into the ground in the discussion right above this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The interesting discussion above covers a lot of ground, but I still don't see any canon evidence which justifies the conjecture in the main article that the refit from large dish/large bridge module version to smaller dish/smaller bridge version was reflected in a change of class name from Starship to Constitution. This seems to be purely conjectural and should be removed.--Skon 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I never said that the "model" name was changed from Starship to Constitution; the TOS Era Enterprise was a Constitution-model ship then, too. It's just that in Kirk's time the style was NOT to put the ship's model name on the plaque, but instead to put the ship's type, or classification ("class" for short). For example, if the Enterprise was a Dodge Neon car, his plaque would say "Car Class" or something, since it would be classified as a car, as opposed to a van or a truck (driver's licenses do the same thing). It wouldn't say "Neon Class," which is the specific model name. Now, obviously by the time of TMP they changed the style so they WOULD put the model name on the plaque rather than the ship's classification, so in essense, they did decide to put "Constitution Class" (similar to putting "Neon Class" on there, to continue our example) instead of the generic classification "Starship" (similar to putting "Car Class" on the plaque). Hopefully I've explained it better now. :) --Alex Munro 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. :) Anyway, my focus here was more on what was in the article text.--Skon 16:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha speculation Edit

Although not stated explicitly, Vulcan and other alien design elements such as from the Vahklas (ENT: "Fusion") apparently went into the original construction of Constitution-class ships. The 2260s marked the last mention of UESPA, suggesting that the various defense and exploration agencies of Federation member worlds were finally combined around this period.

I am removing this note. The first half had been requesting a citation for quite some time, and quite frankly I can't think of one. The second part does not seem to be apocrypha at all, just speculation. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Landing feet Edit

Landing feet: The Constitution class starship was equipped with landing feet (those two, darker triangle shapes on the underside of the saucer section). However, since they were never used on screen, many believe that they were nonexistent.

This note has gone uncited for 4 months. If it can be cited, it can be returned. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Phaser power and main reactor post refit Edit

The problem cropped up again to bite them in the ass during the Khan incident when his attack took main power off line, reducing the phasers to "a few shots" (Scotty's words) which Spock proclaimed insufficient to pierce Reliant's shields.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I removed:

NCC-1770: The latter starship is seen on a display from The Voyage Home which was sold at It's A Wrap! sale and auction.

Correct me if I am wrong, but looking at the second image here I see an "NX-200" next to an Excelsior icon, and a "NC-177" next to a Constitution icon. Where are we getting "NCC-1770" out of this, or rather, where are we getting the final "0"? --Alan del Beccio 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Before someone says it, I KNOW "it's speculation", but the "NX-200" obviously has to be Excelsior (it's only 3-4 months since the events in III, and she's the prototype, after all), so the dropped "0" is assumed. Likewise I would with the "0" on the Connie.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And the missing second "C" is assumed as well? That's an awful lot of assumptions, and you know what they say about those. :) Let's better not go there... -- Cid Highwind 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonable at all...the panel IS a screen used prop...any errors must be the result of a production mistake. You can clearly SEE Excelsior in the FX footage in the film, after all.
I've said it before, and I say it again: reason and logic are our friends...we need to dump this "can't say it without a 'perzact quote' to justify it" mentality.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see how we can assume that the starship is NCC-1770. For all we know, a 0 was dropped from the Excelsior and a 2 from the Conny. Why do mistakes have to be logical?
If anything, I think NC-177 should be created, with a note explaining the obvious mistake in registry, and possibility of it being "NCC-1770".– Cleanse 10:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You make it sound as if "reason and logic" absolutely lead to your result - but that just isn't the case. "NCC-1770" isn't even consistent with the "dropped-zero-theory" you suggest, because the second "C" would still be missing. I could think of a dozen other theories, both "in-universe" and production-wise, that would lead to other assumed registries. -- Cid Highwind 11:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is likely the truest. What is simpler, two dropped 0s and a dropped C or inventing even MORE phantom starships?Capt Christopher Donovan 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The "simplest explanation" surely isn't the one that leads to a registry number that hasn't been seen anywhere, not even on this barely visible display graphic we're talking about. -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The "simplest explanation" is that it was meant to read NCC-1701 and someone made a typo. -- 12:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This week's auction [1] has a similar display with NX-2000 and NCC-1707 on it. --James Cody 07:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so much for Occam's Razor. thanks Cody. --Alan 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw. Why is the NCC-1707 listed as a certain constitution but the ones from op.retrieve are uncertain. Aren't they all really only represented as "constitution icons", for certain. The panels seem to show programmed departure routes for the two ships, and this suspiciously reminds me of the scene scripted for the two controllers in ST4. Where Excelsior and Intrepid are ordered to launch but neither can power up and the doors cant be opened. We all ready speculate the Intrepid to be the Miranda-class ship shown in the beginning of the film. So it really doesn't seem like a 100% certain deal to me. --Pseudohuman 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Text removed Edit

I removed the following speculative text:

It may be speculated that the major refit of 2266 was the reason the presumably previous Starship-class was renamed Constitution-class while the original dedication plaques were kept, maybe out of a sense of tradition. This would make the USS Constitution the first refitted vessel. This conjecture could also explain the discrepancy between the USS Constitution's NCC-1700 registry and the registry NCC-1017 of the USS Constellation.

-- Renegade54 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-refit Enterprise Edit

USS Enterprise leaving galactic barrier, remastered
Original Configuration
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), DS9
Refit 1 Configuration
USS Enterprise-A quarter
Refit 2 Configuration

On the page you see the sidebar saying original configuration............. but that wasn't the original disign. It should be the one next to this. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) So should I add this new sidebar or is it not needed. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd hold off on it until we have more comments. Personally, I am against. The differences between the first two configurations were extremely minor, and mostly cosmetic. I don't see that as warranting a huge side bar entry. The second refit, the one regarding the TMP configuration, was a major one. Minor cosmetic changes don't need a huge sidebar, just look at Galaxy class, where we do not have all of the various configurations with minor changes that we have seen listed. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just the picture of the original? So you can find the different one here. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There really is no need to create a sandbox for a sidebar. In fact, you could just mention the original original version in the history, or on the Enterprise page, seeing as it has been noted that there are several subtle variations in the various ships shown from that class. Besides, what appears to the right, the first two are barely indistinguishable, at least compared to the refit. --Alan 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saying it wasn't the original. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to sound obtuse... but I'm curious. Can you explain the visual differences between the "prefit", and "refit 1"? I'm not saying I'm for, or against anything, I just don't see a difference. Hossrex 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PNA Tactical Section Edit

Someone really made a mess of the Tactical Section for the original configuration...they started counting every place phaser fire came from and counted that as an emitter, for example. They also tried to pin down exactly which torp tube was where without any evidence I could see for what they claimed and dropped two tubes off the count entirely.

I straightened out what I felt comfortable with right at this juncture. I'd like to see the rest fixed, but the whole section may be better off being rewritten in toto at this point.

What we KNOW, and can prove from dialoge, is at least 6 torp tubes (Elaan of Troyius) w/at least one aft firing (IAMD), and forward, aft, port, and starboard phasers (2 banks each). I may do some digging into the cited references for yet MORE banks, but it will take me some time.

I invite anyone who has the time and reference material to help out as they can...Capt Christopher Donovan 04:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And what of:
"Given the history of the particle beam weapons established in Star Trek: Enterprise, it must be inferred that all subsequent (early) Earth and Federation starships were mounted with some form of phase weapons. While it was clear in "The Cage" that laser technology was commonplace at that time, the addition of shipboard phaser technology was not known to exist aboard Constitution-class starships until "The Corbomite Maneuver"." (?)
That was removed as well, without reason, nor was it archived (until now), along with everything else that was removed. --Alan 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A) The material you mention is speculation with no canon support, so there is little need to save it.

B) The original texts are saved in the "History" section.

C) It's irrelevant because I broke down and completely rewrote that section to be compliant with what we can SUPPORT in canon (and made a realization that changed things up a bit.

Check out the updated section for changes and full citations.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, visual effects ARE CANON, and should NOT be simply ignored. I agree with the argument that the article looks less messy when only sparse information is given in a condensed way, but is that really the point of Memory Alpha, or are we here to give accurate and detailed information. I feel there is a wealth of information concerning the locations of the phaser emitters and torpedo tubes available. Of course there is inconsistency, but I feel the two forward emitters clearly established in "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II" and the two in the remastered episodes of TOS establish where the four forward emitters mentioned in "The Paradise Syndrome" are located. Claiming that there are 8 forward phasers would be speculation and inconsistent with BOTH dialogue and effects.
As for the port and starboard phaser emitters, I don't feel a mention of the emitter locations from the Star Fleet Technical Manual diagram should be totally ignored when that SAME image was prominently used on-screen in ST III (screencap: clearly showing these exact locations. It deserves at least a background note. It would not be right to interpret that the "phaser bank p/s" text in this picture really refers to the refit weapons in similar locations, as a comparison would clearly place them in different positions.
I can accept that "helm phaser" and "forward phaser" may refer to the same thing. Although I have no idea where a line was spoken about "helm phasers" as no citation is given by Capt Christopher Donovan. Is it possible he has mistaken some dialogue, as "helm" is the station on the bridge that fires the phasers... anyway, when the phaser control room tecs give the lines "port weapons show ready" "starboard and midship weapons show ready" in "Balance of Terror", it does NOT make sense that p/s emitters ARE the midship phasers. There is also nothing canonical to indicate there are exactly two banks to cover each flank.
I feel only five torpedo launchers have been definately established in a very clear way. 1 aft launcher above shuttlebay, 1 central forward launcher in the forward nudge of the ring "In a Mirror Darkly Pt. II", two side by side forward launchers on the ring in all the effects of remastered TOS. 1 ventral launcher in the lit bulge at the bottom of the saucer from "More Tribbles, More Troubles". In that same episode a launcher in the ring fires a torpedo, so it is definetly not a "mistake", as they could have just as easily reused the previous shot.
I don't feel that we necessarely need to interpret the dialogue " photon torpedoes 2, 4 and 6. Widest possible scatter" from "Journey to Babel" as indicating that these refer to separate torpedo launchers, as they may JUST AS WELL refer to the armed torpedoes available for rapid fire launch from a single torpedo launcher. Six torpedoes are fired in sequence in "Elaan of Troyus" but again there is NOTHING to indicate they come from more than the three launchers that have been established, as even the effects would indicate this.
I urge anyone to correct the tactical section back to a more accurate form who feels the same way I do. (Pseudohuman 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

I'll start with the torpedo arguement because it is the easiest: Torpedoes "2, 4, and 6" CANNOT be in a single launcher, as they would have to launch PAST other torpedoes in the same tube, a physical impossibility. We don't see multiple torpedo volleys from a single tube until ST III, when the Enterprise fired 2 from her starboard tube against Kruge's BoP, and later TNG, when the E-D' can fire up to 10 from her tubes.

[Aside from "in universe", 1 topedo = 1 tube would also correspond with the real Navy, which was the main paradigm the writers were working from, particularly submarines, but that is a logic arguement that need not be made in face of the canon facts that already support my statement.]

Now, "IAMD" shows us that Connies DO have aft torpedoes, so we have at least 1 aft firing tube to fire those torpedoes. I COULD have ADDED that tube to the forward tubes and called it a minimum of 7 tubes (note I used the word MINIMUM, because we don't know if there are any other tubes or not. It took the conservative (and in keeping with the evidence) route of allowing that the aft tube could be 1,3, or 5, thus a "minimum of 6 torpedo tubes, one firing aft". On to the phasers. First I wrote this:

A bank actually consisted of a single emitter and it's power supply, though it was common practice to fire two banks at a time and refer to it as a single firing . (TOS: "The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Doomsday Machine", "The Paradise Syndrome")

This accounts for the fact that Constellation fired ONE beam for one bank in "TDM", AND the more typical paired firings seen elsewhere. It also incorporates Sulu's dialogue and the FX from "TPS" ("Phaser One fired" [two beams] "Phaser Two fired" [again two beams], until after "Phaser Four fired" he announces "All phasers fired".

The remainder of what I wrote lays out the numbers and locations:

In the original configuration, eight forward phaser banks are located on the ring structure on the ventral side of the saucer section. Two banks are located above the shuttlebay on the secondary hull. There are also port, starboard, "helm" and "midship" phasers. (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"; TOS: "Balance of Terror", "The Paradise Syndrome", "Arena", "Friday's Child"; TAS: "The Ambergris Element").

I then restate my logic and evidence as a background note in the article:

It is not clear where the additional banks mentioned in background dialogue and in several episodes are located, and there may be some overlap ("helm"/forward, "midship"/port-starboard, for example). "The Doomsday Machine" establishes that one bank=one emitter, so using that as a basis, the total number of banks on an original configuration Constitution class is a minimum of 12.

I should have made it clear I was allowing 1 emitter each for "port" and "starboard" and assuming that port/starboard = the "midships" weapons and that helm = "forward". So we have 8 forward, 2 aft, and 1 port and 1 starboard bank, for a total minimum of 12 (again note the use IN the article of the word "minimum").

Now, for Pseudohuman's arguement that every little inconsistent FX detail (and the FX for the unremastered Trek ARE horribly inconsistent at times, with beams coming out of every which place, different textures, even different COLORS) is an excuse for adding more and more weapons...I just don't think that adds up, especially in the face of the fact we now have the Remastered versions with corrected FX work.

The only "fly in the ointment" I can see is that if the remastered "Doomsday Machine" shows Constellation firing TWO beams from her 1 charged bank. I haven't seen the remastered ep, nor any screencaps of that particular fx shot. If someone who has the remastered ep could check, we could settle that issue, and I could correct my numbers accordingly...Capt Christopher Donovan 08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

THE FACT IS we have no idea how torpedo launchers are constructed and work in the original Constitution class. We don't even know what a torpedo really looked like during The Original Series. Starships ARE NOT submarines and torpedoes in space have VERY LITTLE to do with torpedoes in the sea, so "real Navy to Star Trek" comparisons are pure SPECULATION and do not belong in an article. If effects show torpedoes 2, 4 and 6 launched from two front tubes, there is no reason to claim PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES to disregard what is shown on-screen, as those impossibilities rise from SPECULATION. Also, concerning your statement that we dont see a rapid fire launch until STIII, this is also incorrect, as we clearly see a rapid fire launching of torpedoes from a single tube in "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II"
Claiming the effects as PROOF, that 2 beams fire each time when a "phaser" is fired in "The Paradise Syndrome", falls "flat on its ass" as when all four (eight as Capt Christopher Donovan now claims) are simultaneously fired and we ALSO SEE 2 phaser beams firing in both the original and remastered versions of that episode. It is extremely inconsistant to claim there are 8 forward phasers, as you would need to see these 8 phasers firing simultaneously to have proven EFFECTS CONSISTENCY in that episode all the way through! An analysis that manages to contradict both the EFFECTS in the end and the DIALOGUE that speaks of only four phasers is not the one I would vote for. It certainly does not belong in the article as a supposed FACT without as much as a mention of the MASSIVE INCONSISTENCY it spawns from.
The fact that port, starboard and midship phaser weapons ARE established as separate in the dialogue of "Balance of Terror" is clear. It should not be a part of any SPECULATION on an article to say they might all three just be the same two emitters.
Also, let me restate my argument. I don't believe every little TOS original FX inconsistency concerning phaser colors and locations should be taken seriously. (The text I had written included some notes on some of those, as I thought they were important in the context, as they still are canonical.) I do believe that the remastered versions of TOS FX should be regarded as the TRUE version. BUT as there are in addition the "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II" high quality effects and the "More Tribbles, More Troubles" torpedo launch scene that are NEITHER a part on The Original Series, NOR obscurely inconsistent, and as they are CANON, they should be counted in on the Tactical Systems article. --Pseudohuman 21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just completed an edit that I feel is a reasonable balance of specificity and avoids bogging down in too much nitpicking. It is ~80% Psuedohuman's last edit, and ~20% reworked.

This represents an edit I can live with...what say you, Psuedohuman?Capt Christopher Donovan 01:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise It looks okay, but I still DO NOT agree with the SPECULATIVE interpretation that AT LEAST 6 torpedo tubes must exist. Even though naval terminology is heavily used its still just on the word level. Similar numbering of torpedoes was used later on in DS9 "For the Uniform". First firing torpedoes 1 and 2, and then orders to prepare torpedoes 3 and 4. Also the plasma warheads and sefety unlatchings on torpedoes 3 and 4 for example are mentioned, so it's safe to assume they are talking about the actual TORPEDOES and NOT the TUBES. Both interpretations are basically valid BUT again it falls either into the arena of "effects not correcting inconsistancies even in the remastered version" if we interpret them in your way, and NO INCONSISTANSIES WHAT SO EVER if we interpret them my way. And as the policy of Memory Alpha reads: "The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." I see no support for your interpretation here. --Pseudohuman 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, where are Alan, OC, and the others? I thought they were going to chime in on this arguement...

Anyways, Pseudohuman, as a last resort, we can always pull the specific numbers and go with "many" or "multiple" for the quantities. The general preference here is for maximum specificity, BUT it it fends off an edit war, I'd be willing to "go vague".Capt Christopher Donovan 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One step in the direction of solving some disputes here would be if we considered the Michael McMaster USS Enterprise Bridge Blueprints (reproduced in their entirety in here. [2]) as a valid background source, unfortunately they seem pretty apocryphical to me. For example there the top row on the helm station panel has the 6 buttons for torpedo tube select according to McMasters, and in the left hand side of the weapons sub-sys station there are again 6 tube controls (although only four controls for tube loading and four for torpedo generators, suggesting that at least two of the generators and loaders might supply two separate tubes, or some other combination...) A wall-screen showing torpedo status has again 6 separate lights (possibly indicating a loaded tube) and a group of 85 lights next to them (possibly suggesting the complete torpedo complement of the ship). Concerning phasers, MacMasters gives us 6 phaser banks (the second row of buttons on the helm). The weapon sub-sys station somehow apparently divides them to primary and secondary phasers both sets with 4 separate energy storage units, totaling in 8. How they would be divided amongs the banks is a mystery. --Pseudohuman 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Cruiser Classification Edit

Constitution diagram

Consitution diagram from ST:III

In responce to GhorkovKing's edit, the Connie is definately a heavy cruiser, not a medium cruiser, as can be seen in the image here. Tanky 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Refit crew Edit

In Star Trek: The Motion Picture refit crew is given by the computer reading out crew status for Decker as: 172 on duty, 248 off duty and 11 in sickbay, that with the 3 dead (the initial transporter accident + Illia, of which we know Sonak was not replaced but i'm assuming the female transporter victim was) plus 1 coming aboard (Spock) would seem to make the standard crew for refit connies as a total of 432 in 2272 and reduced down to 300 by 2293 --Pseudohuman 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Two torpedoes?Edit

Umm. "Each tube could fire at least two torpedoes before reloading." was added to the tactical section. As far as I know, the original configuration torpedo launchers seemed to simply have a rapid fire capability of single torpedoes at a time as established in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". I know of no canon or even non-canon reference to two torpedo loadings. --Pseudohuman 17:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this note as no one has stated where it comes from. --Pseudohuman 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The information covers the refit configuration. The Enterprise demonstrated this capacity against Kruge's BoP in ST III.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. As I recall, when automation was working they simply had rapid fire capability in both configurations. The fact that they fire two torpedoes while automated to disable a BoP doesn't really count as a fact like this. IMO it's speculation. Scotty specifically stated "All systems automated..." that includes the torpedo reload. No matter how many manual loadings they did in ST2, it was never stated only manual loadings are possible in the refit-configuration. --Pseudohuman 05:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The automation was put in place by Scotty AFTER the events in WoK as a response to the ship's crew being reassigned.
Either way, in TSFS, the torpedoes were fired ONCE, firing TWO torpedoes. Both came from the starboard tube, meaning two casings were in the tube when fired.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that. Kirk gave the order to fire (torpedoes) and two torpedoes were fired in rapid fire one after the other. Nothing else is known. We do not know if an automated reload happened between the firings or not. Therefore there is no basis to speculate rapid fire can only be accomplished with torpedoes that are loaded into a tube simultaneously. --Pseudohuman 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Engineering image Edit

Is the use of File:Constitution original engineering.jpg appropriate given the fact that the image of the replica Enterprise? --JemHadar359 06:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It was still identical to the real thing in appearance. and I think thats all that matters. --Pseudohuman 06:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deck Count Edit

In the side-box about the original configuration, it shows a deck count of 30. Virtually every reference I've ever seen or used gives the Constitution class a deck count of either 21 or 23 decks (discounting the rather silly "Deck 78" sign in STV:TFF). Where did this number come from? --Antoniemey 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See: this discussion or this topic specific article. --Alan 05:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Length, crew complement, and mass of Alternate Reality version Edit

Guys, the length, crew complement, and mass of the Alternate Reality (new movie) configuration make no sense. The length as of now (Monday, May 11, 2009, 9:38 AM EST) is listed as 757m, compared to 289m for the TOS version and 305M for the movie version. Perhaps 757 *feet* is meant? (But that would make it only 230m long...) Also, the crew complement is given as 1100, compared to ~300-450 for the various TOS/movie versions. But more ridiculously still, the mass given is around HALF of that of the TOS/movie versions. What is going on, people?

I have to agree, that size figure is ridiculous. No matter what the "official" size is, the film clearly demonstrates that the ship is more or less the same size as the Constitutions from the original universe. For one thing, when the shuttle carrying Pike, Kirk, Sulu and Olsen leaves the shuttlebay, you can see that the shuttle bay is about the same size as the TOS Constitution. If the ship were 757m long, the shuttlebay would be about 46ft tall. It clearly isn't that tall.
Furthermore, the bridge would be about 75ft across on a 757m ship, which again, it clearly isn't in the film.
Finally, the mass figure would make the ship impossibly "light", as in, it would quite easily float in an ocean at that mass. Clearly, whomever provided that information for those figures didn't do much research, nor know much about Star Trek ships.
I think at least, some notation needs to be made the the size figure is unknown, because of the conflict between the "official" size and the size demonstrated on screen. Rogue Vulcan 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the source for these dimensions, anyways? We don't even put technical manual stuff in the main article section, I can't imagine some promotional website should be held higher than that. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The 757m size comes from here:
And even more ridiculous size of 914m comes from ILM themselves, here: Rogue Vulcan 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Needs to get removed or put in background only, then. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

separate page ? Edit

can you explain me, why not a separate page ? C-IMZADI-4 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is what's being done with the U.S.S. Enterprise articles: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) vs. USS Enterprise (NCC-1701 alternate reality). Seems to me the two Constitution classes are very different ships. Stekev 02:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, referencing the new Enterprise as Constitution-class anywhere outside a BtS section is contrary to policy, as there is no IU source for her class yet. What probably needs to happen is all info on the Alternate Constitution class needs to get taken out of the main article and put under BtS, definitely no new article. Dangerdan97 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there's been an edit war and a page protection over this issue, yet no discussion about it. The "alternate reality" (ie, new movie) information is briefly mentioned in the article. What is the current decision on how to handle this, or has a decision not been reached? Stekev 01:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Simply because there's no information in the movie that there is an alternate reality constitution class - it's all speculation, though a production source has confirmed it is the constitution class that can only go in the background note. Hence, no page for Constitution class (alternate reality) so there's really nothing to discuss. — Morder 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, No. If it is stated as being a constitution class in an official bg source, then it can have its own article as an alternate reality. --Alan 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In any event, all the Alternate-E info's now in one place in the Background section. Dangerdan97 21:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Which absolutely makes no sense... so thanks for complicating things. --Alan 21:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you're quite welcome. Care to season your gratitude with an explanation? Honestly, every time I try to do right by this place, I get slapped in the face. I'll keep trying if I can get a little guidance, though. Dangerdan97 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate page. The Constitution-class page is already an insanely huge mammoth of a read, we should separete a lot of stuff to their own articles, to make this page more readable. such as a "weapon systems of the constitution-class" etc. Because there is a lot of details more on that subject that could be noted in MA. --Pseudohuman 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it's been moved out to a seperate article. Good call. Stekev 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ejecting the Nacelles? Edit

It has been suggested that both The Apple and The Savage Curtain reference the ability of the nacelles to be ejected. However, that word is never used. In the Apple, Kirk says, "discard" the nacelles and "crack out of there with the main section", which Scotty describes as dangerous. In the Savage Curtain, Kirk says "disengage the nacelles and jettison them if possible". In both cases, there is no clear indication that the nacelles can be separately jettisoned from the secondary engineering hull and in the case of the The Savage Curtain, doing so may not even be possible. In the case of the Apple, with the background of the early script draft including a saucer separation, it seems clear that "discard the nacelles" meant "saucer separation", especially in light of the complete dialogue exchange between Kirk and Scotty. Savage Curtain presents a more complicated analysis in that disengage and jettison can be interchangeable. Rather than assume Kirk is being redundant, the most logical assumption is that he means "turn off" the warp nacelles so as to nullify the explosive build-up and try to jettison them in some way failing that, the actual possibility of which being in question. Certainly saucer separation is one dangerous possibility suggested in the Apple which does not specifically come up here, though he does not have the time to go into great detail before he is cut off. Of course, Kirk could just as well be referring to turning off the warp drive (nacelles) and separating from them (the secondary hull) using impulse power alone of the saucer section, which is essentially the same procedure proposed in the Apple. About the only thing that can actually be concluded from these two episodes is that 1) separating any of the sections of the ship is dangerous, and 2) separating the nacelles from the secondary engineering hull may not be possible -- 07:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested article split Edit

I'm thinking it is getting to be time to split off the sections regarding the various studio models into their own article. While I greatly appreciate the recent additions by Sennim, the background section (especially studio model) info is getting longer than the whole of the rest of the article, including the canon section. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:06, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is so much information about it, it deserves to have its own article, not only to make this one clearer, but to make the information more prominent.--31dot 02:18, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I'm glad you like my contributions. I've to admit I was as surprised as you to discover that there was that much to tell about the Constitution-class models (and I have yet to cover the TMP-model). While in this specific case it is true that a split is certainly worthwhile thinking about, I wonder if we should enter this path. If we do it in this case then, for internal consistency, we must do this for all ship-classes and for those the story is a whole lot shorter. My personal opinion is: let it be it is a one-off situation, but if a majority decides otherwise, I'll comply...--User:Sennim
First off, I agree with the split. Second, I'm of the opinion that all the "hero" ship classes could have this type of information split off, but the rest really aren't long enough to warrant it. An article for model information on all ship classes could be an option. - Archduk3:talk 03:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict I don't think so (on the "must be done to all ship class articles" thing). Splits can be done on a case by case basis where enough material warrants it. This is done on Wikipedia all the time, where (for example) an article on one region may include the complete history text, as there isn't much of it, while another article will have its history section split off. We do that on Memory Alpha already as well. See Ktarian, which has its entire history section internal to the article, while Klingon has history split off into Klingon history. Different articles with different volumes of information often require different solutions. Now, we may see the need to apply this elsewhere to other articles, sure, but we don't have to apply it universally for consistency's sake. YMMV --OuroborosCobra talk 03:04, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I had a couple of days to let this topic run through my mind. I'm still not convinced a split is really warranted. As I already stated, this particular case is an exception concerning its length (it is remarkable what little there is too tell about the Intrepid-class model for example), secondly this being a "featured article" it is kinda nice to show that there is so much to tell both about the fictional existence of the class as well as it "real life" existence. In my mind at least it has truly become a show-piece article, well researched by all contributors and well-balanced, but again that's only my opinion.
I appreciate the suggestions of Archduke3, but I foresee problems with his suggestions. A first one he has already mentioned himself: some articles would be extremely short, others extremely long, when put in a separate article concerning model-information. A separate entry under "hero-models" has not only this problem also, but an additional one concerning the term "hero-model" itself, it would open the path to endless discussion which model to include and which not. My opinion is; let's not open this can of worms...Still if the webmasters find a split from a practical standpoint worthwhile, I'll have no qualms about it, but my suggestion would be a split along the lines of the fictional history (in-universe) and a real-world history (from a production point-of-view). I think this then would be the most elegant option...Have a nice day all.--User:Sennim
I don't think the idea was to create an article "Hero models", but just to restrict separate model articles to those cases where it would be sensible to do a split. So, we would have a real-world article Constitution class model (or similar), but not an article Oberth class model because there's not enough information for that. -- Cid Highwind 14:44, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree with a split and agree that it should be limited as Cid suggests. — Morder (talk) 23:43, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm still of the opinion that this article, being a "featured article" is the very best Memory Alpha can offer; i.e. a very well researched in-universe part versus a very well researched Production POV, and as such should not be split. Yes, it is very long but where is the harm in that? As of now the "in-universe" part is roughly as long as the "real-universe" part...Is this bad, methinks not, it only shows that that it matters. Splitting off, let's say the the model-parts is acknowledging those who consider us nutcases, like it or not. And if a split is in order, I cannot stress enough the need to do this along "logical" lines, which is in-universe versus "out-universe", for if anything else you WILL open a can of worms you'll live to regret.Sennim 02:25, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

First off, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy to start with, and you haven't established what type of can of worms you'd be opening. The only one I've seen you suggest is the "everything or nothing" approach, which we've already said would not happen. There isn't even anything logical about doing that. Splitting this off doesn't treat you as a nutcase, deleting it would treat you as a nutcase. Splitting it off, if anything, elevates its importance. It could be a featured article in its own right. Hell, I think it should be a featured article. The fact is that MA is, first and foremost, a canon wiki written from an in-universe POV. That is the harm, here. This article isn't a real world article, it is an in-universe article, but half of it (possibly more than half, soon) is not in-universe. We could have the majority of the Jadzia Dax article be about the real world person that was on screen, Terry Farrell, but we don't. This is pretty much the same thing, the majority of this article has become not about the Constitution class, but about models made by people in the 20th century to play the part of Constitution class on camera. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:47, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

The "harm" in this article being long is that both parts of it are drowned out by each other, and no one can appreciate or learn about either. Separating them helps people read them, and as Cobra said, both could and probably should be featured articles individually.--31dot 02:51, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
If we split this, I'm seconding what OuroborosCobra said above, in that we nominate the model article for FA status at the same time, since by itself it's already one of the best articles we have. - Archduk3:talk 03:26, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
I do see the point you make OuroborosCobra, and to a large degree I go along with your reasoning. "The can of Wurms"-scenario was intended for future reference...I myself will not resist splitting the article as I have stated before (though it has not my preference, but hey, I'm entitled to my opinion is it not?), what I merely intended to say was we need to have a sort of guideline when and how to do this in order to avoid ambiguity in future cases. But I do not go along with your comparison of Terry Farrell, she was born as such and no matter what she'll always be Terry Farrell...Not so the model of the Enterprise, even in Real Life she was always intended to be the Enterprise...(not a nasty remark, if I could have inserted smileys I've would have, in abundance)Sennim 04:19, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, before I forget, on behalf of William McCullars, David Shaw and myself thank you for your kind words OuroborosCobra and Archduk3--Sennim 05:02, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
There is a serious need for some removal of unnecessary information, such what could be interpreted as "original research" presented below (Nevermind the awful formatting):
*In two instances the suspected saucer separation capabilities of the Constitution-class came very close to becoming canon. The first instance occurred in footage of the debris field shown in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II"; Both the engineering hull and the saucer section separated from each other have been positively identified as belonging to the Constitution-class [3]. However since it can also be argued that this could have resulted from battle damage it remains non-canonical. The second instance concerned the USS Olympia whose crashed saucer section could be seen in "The Sound of Her Voice" along with a severed nacelle from a Constitution-class starship (those two parts already having been used as debris of the exploding USS Odyssey in "The Jem'Hadar"). A behind-the-scenes photo clearly showed that the saucer landed in the same fashion as the Enterprise-D in Star Trek Generations [4](X) (the model landscape build by Gregory Jein). But again, since the visuals are open to multiple interpretations and since the ship is not further commented upon (neither in dialogue or computer read-outs), the capability remains debatable. In both instances (parts of) the battle-damaged version of the studio model, slightly modified, of the Enterprise from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock were used (photos in Cinefantastique Vol.28, No4/5, page 64 and Vol.25/26, No.6/1 page 109).
Also the section in the background about the NCC origin is irrelevant to this article (especially when going as far as to cite a MA forum as a source of debate) and can be presented on NCC. --Alan 15:53, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
I'm am not so sure about the unnecessary nature of those two remarks. In case of the saucer separation, while no statement can be made either way, as reflected in the text, the visual imagery is there and thus canon. Simply ignoring that is a bit too easy a way out, in my view. In the case of the registry, I understand the reasoning behind that, but this, in my view is a specific case, it is the very first such number and was specifically designed for the Enterprise which happened to be a Constitution-class vessel.--Sennim 09:23, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
...but still nevertheless irrelevant to the Constitution class, in as far as MA operates...or any encyclopedia or wiki would, for that matter. Build the web, and all that jazz. Second, visual imagery is that of wreckage, at least in canon. --Alan 15:39, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
<blockqoute>On occasion, it is necessary or appropriate to include commentary about an unusual or contested point of information in an article. If there is a sufficient amount of information, it should be contained in a separate section, named:==Background Information==Alternatively, comments and information may be described in a short paragraph (no longer than three sentences) </blockquote>...This text is literally from the MA style guidelines. So since the "separation" text was contained in a background article, the "in-universe" argument Alan put forth is void in my view, though he makes a very strong point were the article put in a "in-universe" POV, which it was not. After some consideration I've come to agree with him on the registry-issue. Though it was originally designed for the NCC-1701, it has become a generic denomination for Star Fleet vessels. Transferral of the text to the entry "Registry number" seems to be in order.--Sennim 04:14, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Redux Edit

So the studio models and designing sections are even larger now then before, so split to Constitution class model (as suggested above)? Any other issues with these sections could be sorted out after the split. - Archduk3 20:29, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer resisting a split, I've to agree that the article is becoming cumbersome, especially since I know that there are some additions forthcoming. I only hope y'll treat my baby gently. The suggestion I would like to make is to have only section 4.3 separated and put that under the heading Constitution class studio models and leave the rest in place. - Sennim 21:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Lost image? Edit

In the section Designing the Motion Picture Enterprise interiors, the following sentence seems to have lost its referent:

The image to the right shows the plate of the cargo deck scene, filmed from Kirk's perspective as he enters the new Enterprise.

I presume there was an image there at one point, and it's since been removed or deleted. I haven't been through the article history to see when it was lost, because I thought somebody might remember what happened. If we can figure that out and restore the image, that would be great; otherwise, the sentence should be removed or reworded. —Josiah Rowe 03:17, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

PNA on a Featured Article? Edit

This is supposed to be a Featured Article yet there is a PNA on it at the bottom of the page. Is this intentional or a mistake? -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:01, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

The PNA is on information that was added post-FA. Fix it and we're all good. It stays, someone should eventually put it up for FA removal. -- sulfur 20:04, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I do see the confusion on TrekFans part, I've no idea what the PNA is referring to...Sennim 22:18, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

That was my point. It's just...there. Usually, they are located in specific sections which made me think this one was there by mistake. Can anyone see what this might be referring to? If not, should we remove it? -- TrekFan Open a channel 22:20, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what it is referring to. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:24, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
It was added here. Having said that, the user didn't add anything to the talk page about it. Instead, it was added to a different page, apparently by accident. It's now been added immediately below this section. -- sulfur 22:32, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

PNA formatting Edit

I started working on getting rid of the ugly and kludgy "image dump" galleries and formatting the images into the article more organically. That way the image supports the text it illustrates better and makes the article more pleasing to the eye. As this is such a core page, I would think those qualities would be of great importance.

However, my browser is fighting with MA right now, esp on these BIG articles. Any help in advancing this project would be very appreciated.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:43, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've adressed Capt. Donovans concerns about the "imagedumps" as best as I could...In my opinion the article is now aesthetically pleasing (that is until the next skin change of course :))...Any thoughts about warranting the PNA, which I think is now resolved?---Sennim 12:56, April 21, 2011 (UTC)